Opinion ID: 1809635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: should the insurance policy be interpreted to allow the attack to constitute more than one occurrence?

Text: ¶ 14. The Crums and Langfords argue that each effect, or each person injured by each dog, constitutes a separate occurrence under the policy. Farm Bureau argues that the dog attack is one instance of negligence and constitutes only one occurrence. ¶ 15. Both Farm Bureau and the Crums and Langfords interpret Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ford to support their respective positions. In Ford, an employee embezzled money from his employer on 175 different occasions. The issue was whether the 175 different embezzlements constituted one occurrence or 175 different occurrences under the insurance policy. The policy provision defined loss as loss of money which you sustain resulting directly from any fraudulent or dishonest act committed by an employee with manifest intent to (a) cause you to sustain such a loss, and; (b) obtain for benefit of the employee. Ford found that the policy provision was reasonably subject to more than one interpretation citing Gunn v. Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 605 So.2d 741, 746 (Miss.1992). The Court then found in favor of the insured because where there is doubt as to the meaning of an insurance contract, it is universally construed most strongly against the insurer, and in favor of the insured and a finding of coverage. Ford, 734 So.2d at 176. (citations omitted). ¶ 16. More importantly to the case at hand, the Ford Court looked to Business Interiors, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 751 F.2d 361 (10th Cir.1984), which held that an occurrence is determined by the cause or causes of the resulting injury. Ford, 734 So.2d at 177. However, Ford elaborated upon that general rule finding that a factual issue of whether multiple acts are sufficiently related to constitute one occurrence of loss only arises where the applicable policy language unambiguously states that multiple acts may be so treated. Id. at 178. ¶ 17. The policy does not unambiguously state that multiple injuries may not result in multiple occurrences. Therefore, we find that the policy is ambiguous and that the circuit court erred in granting Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment.