Opinion ID: 2543444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Ms. Matlack presents the following issues for our review: Issue No. 1: Did the lower court err in holding that there was no duty to defend the Original Complaint, which included claims for trespass, wrongful damage to personal property and real property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress? Issue No. 2: Did the lower court err in holding that, as a matter of law, the conduct of the insured was intentional, and that there was no occurrence under the policy? Issue No. 3: Did the lower court err in holding that there was no duty to defend the Amended Complaint? Issue No. 4: Did the lower court err in its determination regarding bad faith? Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company phrases the issues as: 1. Whether the District Court erred in determining that the insurance policy did not provide coverage for the judgment entered by the District Court in accordance with the stipulated agreement of the parties in the underlying case? 2. Whether the District Court erred in its determination that the Appellee did not breach its duty to defend the original complaint filed in the underlying case? 3. Whether the District Court erred in its determination that the Appellee did not breach its duty to defend the amended complaint filed in the underlying case? 4. Whether the District Court erred in its determination that the Appellee did not breach its covenant of good faith and fair dealing to its insured? In her reply brief, Ms. Matlack sets out these additional issues: Issue No. 1: Do allegations and/or findings of punitive damages automatically invoke the intentional act exclusion? Issue No. 2: Given the record in this case, is MWFB's position regarding the duty to defend and coverage contrary to Wyoming law? Issue No. 3: Does MWFB concede the application of INA v. Spangler, 881 F.Supp. 539 (D.Wyo.1995)?