Opinion ID: 2519881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: progressive's declaratory judgment action

Text: ¶ 6 Progressive filed a complaint on July 30, 1999, seeking a declaratory judgment that the actions of Price and Davis amounted to insurance fraud under Utah law that voided insurance coverage entirely for all claims arising from the accident. Davis responded by moving for summary judgment, arguing that the insurance policy mandated liability coverage to injured third parties, even in the event of fraud by the insured, at least up to the minimum statutory limits. [2] Davis further argued that the reference to minimum statutory limits was improperly incorporated into the policy because the insurance contract did not define minimum statutory limits. Accordingly, Davis insisted that Progressive was required to pay up to the full liability coverage amount allowed under the policy. Progressive then filed its own summary judgment motion, arguing that either the insurance policy was completely void due to Davis's and Price's fraud, or, in the alternative, that it could deny Davis's claim due to his fraud. ¶ 7 In a memorandum opinion issued on March 3, 2000, the district court concluded that the insurance policy did not properly incorporate the minimum statutory limits. It therefore precluded Progressive from reducing its liability to those statutory limits. The district court later granted summary judgment in Progressive's favor on July 19, 2000, however. It reasoned that because the misrepresentations by Davis and Price constituted insurance fraud, Davis was precluded from making a claim against Price, and Progressive was excused of any obligation to make payments under the policy to Davis. [3]