Opinion ID: 690797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 20 We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Nevada VTN v. General Ins. Co. of Am., 834 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1987). Thus, we must determine whether, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court applied the substantive law correctly. Id. Because federal jurisdiction is based on the parties' diversity of citizenship, we apply the law of the forum state, Montana. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L.Ed.2d 1477 (1941). See also United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Newman, 656 F.2d 457 (9th Cir.1981) (following Montana law). 21 The general law of contract interpretation governs the interpretation of insurance policies. Newman, 656 F.2d at 459. We must construe the insurance policy as a whole, viewing all its terms and conditions. Mont.Code Ann. Sec. 33-15-316. The language of the policy governs its interpretation, if it is clear and explicit. Wellcome v. Home Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 190, 192 (Mont.1993). However, any ambiguities must be strictly construed against the insurer. Id. See Shell v. Peters, 410 P.2d 152, 155 (1966); Mont.Code Ann. Sec. 28-3-401 (1993). Under Montana law, contract interpretation and whether an ambiguity exists are questions of law to be determined by the court. Schell, 410 P.2d at 152. See also Newman, 656 F.2d at 459 n. 2 (following Montana law). 22 When interpreting an insurance policy, the common rather than the technical definition and usage of the policy's terms should be used. Bauer Ranch v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Ins., 695 P.2d 1307, 1309 (Mont.1985). Thus, we look not at what the insurer meant by the words of the policy but what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would understand the words to mean. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 433 P.2d 795, 798 (Mont.1967). 23 Under the language of either policy, Bartow's claim against Mitchell is for property damage caused by an occurrence which gives rise to coverage. But for the exclusions of each policy, the claim would be covered. 24 The district court found coverage under the automobile policy which excludes coverage for damage to property rented to, used by, or in the care, custody or control of an insured. The district court found the language used by or in the care, custody or control of the insured ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case and thus construed it against the insurer to find coverage. 25 The district court found that at all times the shop was under the care, custody or control of Bartow, by or through his daughter or wife, and that Mitchell was given only a limited right of access to the property for the purpose of pursuing a future lease interest and was thus not 'using' the shop and all of the equipment. Farm Bureau contends that there is a triable issue of fact as to Mitchell's right of access to and use of the shop; however, the record contains no evidence to support Farm Bureau's contentions except its statement of uncontroverted facts which cites to depositions which were not made a part of the record. On the basis of the record before us, we find that there is no triable issue of fact as to the following: (1) Mitchell had a key and therefore access to the Bartow Welding building, but not its office; (2) Bartow and his daughter gave Mitchell express permission to be in the Bartow Welding building to mount a hitch on his truck; and (3) on the day of the fire, Mitchell was in the building for the specific purpose of mounting the hitch. 26 The district court correctly applied the ambiguity analysis to the terms of the exclusion. Ambiguity exists in the policy if different persons looking at the writing in light of its purpose cannot agree upon its meaning. Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Queen, 685 P.2d 935, 937 (Mont.1984). The ambiguity of the use and care, custody or control exclusion arises from the fact that reasonable persons could conclude (1) that because Mitchell had a key which gave him access to three-quarters of the building, when he entered the building on the day of the fire he was using or had care and control of the building; or alternatively (2) that because Mitchell was present in the building with the permission of its owner and its supervisor for the purpose of mounting the hitch, he only used or had care and control over that equipment reasonably necessary to complete the task. 27 Because reasonable persons could disagree as to the meaning of the exclusion, the district court properly adopted the construction most favorable to the insured. See Johnson v. Equitable Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 381 P.2d 778, 779 (Mont.1963). This rule applies with particular force to an ambiguous provision that attempts to exclude liability from coverage. Id. (quoting Eby v. Foremost Ins. Co., 374 P.2d 857 (Mont.1962)). The district court's finding that coverage was afforded for all property damaged except the three pieces of equipment actually being used by Mitchell at the time of the fire reflects a correct application of the substantive law. 28 AFFIRMED.