She alleged Schultze made false statements to third persons, which prevented her from obtaining employment as a dental hygienist. Schultze brought this declaratory judgment action against Continental, seeking a declaration that it had a duty to defend and pay claim expenses against his former employee's wrongful employment practice claims. Schultze's appeal is timely under N.D.R.App. This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. We review this appeal under our standards for summary judgment, which is a procedural device for the prompt disposition of a case on the merits, without a trial, if no material dispute of fact exists, or if only a question of law is involved.
Summary judgment is improper if there are relevant, unresolved factual issues.
Schultze argues the district court erred in deciding all three claims in his former employee's complaint were a continuation of the alleged affair between him and the employee. He argues it is not clear from her complaint which of the otherwise covered allegations stem from events that occurred after the prior acts date. He argues a reasonable interpretation of the complaint refers to new events potentially within the claims period, and any doubt or ambiguity in the complaint must be construed in his favor. A liability insurer's obligation to defend its insured is ordinarily measured by the terms of the insurance policy and the pleading of the claimant who sues the insured. Applegren v. Milbank Mut.