Source: https://swrsllp.com/attorneys/curtis-o-roggow/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:26:33+00:00

Document:
Curt’s practice focuses on analysis and litigation of insurance coverage issues, bad faith and extra-contractual claims against insurers, indemnification agreements and other complex contracts, construction claims, insurance defense, and commercial litigation.
Marshall v. Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance Co.
Curt Roggow obtained summary judgment on behalf of KaMMCO in a declaratory judgment action regarding whether the insurer was required to pay excess coverage for a medical malpractice claim that arose out of serious birth defects to a baby. The insured physician had maintained medical malpractice coverage that did apply to the claim, but the physician also applied for additional excess coverage after the incident that later resulted in a claim. The policy had a separate retroactive date for the additional claims-made, excess limits coverage, which limited the excess coverage to medical incidents that occurred after the excess coverage was first issued. The Kansas Supreme Court held the separate retroactive date for the excess limits coverage was enforceable so that the excess coverage did not apply, and that KaMMCO was entitled to summary judgment.
Published opinion available at 276 Kan. 97, 73 P.3d 120.
Curt Roggow obtained summary judgment on behalf of American Family Mutual Insurance Company in an action for equitable garnishment and bad faith. The judgment creditors sought to obtain coverage for a judgment against American Family’s insured for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, where the insurance policy provided coverage for malicious prosecution. The underlying action on which the judgment was based was filed before the policy was effective, however. Both the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals held that American Family did not provide coverage for the judgment, as a matter of law, because its policy was not effective until after the underlying malicious lawsuit had been filed.
Published opinion available at 238 S.W.3d 170.
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Luke Draily Construction Co.
Curt Roggow and Brian Burge successfully represented EMC in a declaratory judgment action regarding whether a CGL policy it issued provided coverage for claims against a contractor for defective workmanship in construction of a building. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of EMC. The court found, as a matter of law, that claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing for defective workmanship did not constitute an “occurrence” for the purpose of coverage under a liability policy. The court also found a separate theory of negligence was in fact a claim for breach of contractual duties and was, therefore, another contractual claim by a different name. Therefore, the negligence theory did not involve an “occurrence” to which coverage could apply either.
Opinion available at 2001 WL 2582551.
Shava Porter v. American Family Ins. Co.
Curt Roggow represented American Family in a claim for equitable garnishment and bad faith with respect to a judgment totaling nearly $2.4 million for a wrongful death claim. American Family issued a homeowners policy to a husband and wife who were foster parents. A foster child in their custody died while under their care, and the wife was charged with a Class A felony of abuse of a child for knowingly inflicting cruel and inhumane punishment on the foster child. The criminal charges were later amended to a Class C felony of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and the wife pleaded guilty to that charge pursuant to a plea agreement. The Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri granted summary judgment to American Family, holding that an exclusion for “criminal action” applied. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, per curiam.
Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids v. Donoho, et al.
Curt Roggow and Chris Carpenter obtained summary judgment for their client, Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, in a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Foremost had issued an auto policy to a husband and wife. The husband was injured in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist, and Foremost paid the policy limit for bodily injury to “each person” for uninsured motorist benefits to the husband. The wife claimed a separate policy limit should apply to her claim for loss of consortium. The trial court granted Foremost summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that the policy was unambiguous and that the wife’s claim for loss of consortium came within the policy limit for “each person” that had been paid for the husband’s injuries. Therefore, a separate policy limit did not apply to the wife’s consortium claim.
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. v. Palmisano, et al.
Curt Roggow and Chris Carpenter obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, Farmers Insurance Company, in a claim for insurance coverage under an auto policy where a passenger of a vehicle assaulted a police officer outside of the vehicle. The police officer had stopped a pickup in a parking lot and was in the process of arresting the driver of the pickup outside of the vehicle when a passenger in the pickup jumped out of it and onto the officer’s back. The police officer sustained injuries and obtained a judgment against the passenger for those injuries. The officer claimed that the liability coverage in the auto policy that Farmers had issued to the owner of the pickup should apply to the judgment. The court held as a matter of law that the auto policy did not cover the judgment because the assault did not arise out of the operation and use of the vehicle and the passenger did not qualify as an insured for the liability coverage. An exclusion for intentional injury also applied.
Showalter v. Goodville Mutual Casualty Co., et al.
Curt Roggow and Brad Russell successfully represented an injured party in this insurance coverage matter against Goodville Mutual Insurance Company. The case sought a judgment as to whether a homeowner’s policy covered a consent judgment arising out of an accident with an ATV that was being used in place of a golf cart at a golf course. The court found the policy was ambiguous regarding whether coverage for a golf cart was limited to a piece of equipment specifically designed and manufactured as a “golf cart,” as opposed to another mechanized vehicle used for the same purpose, which meant that the policy applied to the consent judgment.
Contractor Supply Co., et al v. Ammon Painting Co., et al.
Curt Roggow obtained summary judgment in favor of an equipment rental company and the company’s insurers in a claim for indemnification and coverage regarding a construction accident that resulted in severe bodily injury to an employee of the contractor. Mr. Roggow successfully argued that an indemnity clause in the rental contract obligated the contractor that rented the equipment to defend and indemnify the rental company for claims the injured employee and his wife brought against the rental company, and that the indemnity clause was an “insured contract” under the contractor’s policies. The court also agreed that the rental company was an additional insured under the contractor’s insurance policies, and that the contractor’s policies were primary to the rental company’s policies under the terms of the rental agreement.
The Western District for the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Roggow’s summary judgment win. The case later settled while transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was pending.
Curt Roggow obtained summary judgment for the Hertz Corporation regarding a claim by American Home Assurance Company for contribution or indemnity for settlement of bodily injury claims by passengers in a rental car who were involved in a one-car accident. Mr. Roggow argued the terms of the rental agreement unambiguously made the driver’s auto liability coverage primary to any self-insured liability protection Hertz would provide. Mr. Roggow also argued that since Hertz was a “self-insurer,” the self-insured liability protection it offered under the rental agreement did not constitute “insurance” within the meaning of the “other insurance” clause of the driver’s policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hertz on the claim.
Sorkin, et al. v. Stephens & Company, Inc., et al.
Curtis Roggow successfully defended a professional liability claim against a real estate agent/land broker. Plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of 287 acres of land. Plaintiffs alleged that Stephens & Company was negligent and failed to use the care and skill required of a real estate agent in listing and selling the property. After a four-day jury Trial, plaintiffs asked the jury to award $1.7 million dollars. The jury returned a verdict finding 0% fault on Stephens & Company.
Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. v. Ammon Painting Co.
Curt Roggow represented Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and Travelers Indemnity Company, and their insured, Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, in a declaratory judgment action concerning coverage for a serious personal injury claim at a construction project. The Travelers companies settled the underlying claim against their insured for $3.5 million. Roggow argued that the contractor that had leased equipment from Hertz Equipment Rental was obligated under the rental agreement to defend and indemnify for the full amount of the loss and that the contractor’s insurers provided coverage that was primary to the coverage that Travelers provided to the rental company. The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri granted summary judgment to Roggow’s clients, and the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues.
Appellate opinion available at 2009 WL 2365578.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.