Opinion ID: 1657419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: medical payments benefits

Text: Finally, the court determined that Johnson was not entitled to medical payments benefits under his EMC policy because an exclusion precluded that coverage for an insured's bodily injury sustained `while working in a business of selling, servicing[,] repairing or parking `autos' unless that business is yours.' The court determined the language was unambiguous and found that Johnson was clearly working for Brown's business at the time of the accident. In their briefs, the parties do not contend this issue would have been resolved differently depending upon whether Colorado or Nebraska law was applied or that an actual conflict exists. Rather, their arguments center upon the proper interpretation of the contract and whether that interpretation requires payment to Johnson under EMC's medical payments provisions. We therefore analyze the issue based upon the arguments in the parties' respective briefs. The interpretation of a contract involves a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach its conclusions independently of the determinations made by the court below. H & R Block Tax Servs. v. Circle A Enters., 269 Neb. 411, 693 N.W.2d 548 (2005). Johnson argues that although he would not have gone to Denver but for Brown's request, once in Denver, Johnson was doing work for his own partnership business as well. While that may be the case, Johnson's evidence does not challenge the undisputed record establishing that at the time of the accident, Johnson was driving a vehicle owned by Brown from Colorado to Nebraska, the very service he had agreed to provide to Brown for a fee. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Johnson and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining as a matter of law that at the time of the accident, Johnson was in Brown's employ. The policy issued by EMC specifically excluded coverage for medical payments under these facts. This assignment of error is without merit.