Opinion ID: 2626085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Contract and Tort Claims against BW

Text: [¶ 30] In the lower court proceedings, McMurry Construction filed a complaint against BW Insurance alleging several causes of action sounding in tort and contract. BW Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment based on McMurry Construction's failure to read the policy and failure to mitigate damages. The district court granted BW Insurance's motion. On appeal, McMurry Construction argues the grant of summary judgment was erroneous because, although it did not read the policy, it should be excused because it did not have an adequate opportunity to read the policy. [¶ 31] Our review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo. We have the same materials before us as the district court and use the same criteria. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact, leaving the prevailing party entitled to judgment as a matter of law. McMurry Construction I, ¶ 12-13, 160 P.3d at 75-76. [¶ 32] As an initial matter, BW Insurance argues that McMurry Construction did not raise this defense in front of the district court. BW Insurance is correct in that McMurry Construction certainly did not raise the issue below as a legal defense. It did, however, argue the general point. We find the argument was sufficiently presented below to allow for appellate review. [¶ 33] Turning, then, to the issue raised, McMurry Construction recognizes this Court's consistent holding, as stated in McMurry Construction I, that failure to read an insurance policy will bar claims against an agent for breach of contract and negligence. It also admits that it never read the business auto policy. It argues, however, the duty to read a policy is mitigated if the insured does not have a reasonable opportunity to read the policy. Without ruling on the legal merits of this argument, we find that, under the facts of this case, the argument is specious. The policy was delivered to McMurry Construction in January 2005. The policy as issued contained the exclusion-of-named-person endorsement excluding Richard Nelson from coverage. The accident happened in September 2005, eight months later. There was ample opportunity to read the policy. [¶ 34] McMurry Construction argues that the reason we should find it did not have a reasonable opportunity to read the policy was that it never received the complete policy. It supports this argument by referencing the cover letter sent by BW Insurance when it received its copy of the policy in January 2005, which stated in part: Please note that there are changes pending for you [sic] policy as there were changes made prior and following the issue of the renewal that are not included in this renewal policy. Ohio Casualty will send you an endorsement soon that states the changes that have been made. The endorsement from Ohio Casualty stating policy changes was quick in coming. On February 1, 2005, a policy change endorsement was issued. The change to the policy was the addition of one more vehicle to the coverage. Significantly, included in the policy change endorsement was a list of other endorsements applicable to the policy in general. The named-person-exclusion was among the endorsements listed. [¶ 35] McMurry Construction suggests that, even after this February 1 endorsement, it did not have the final version of the policy. There are two problems with this argument. First, the cover letter specifically referred to one endorsement that would be arriving soon. The February endorsement fits this description. There was no longer any reason to believe the policy was not complete at that time. Second, reliance on potential changes to be made in the future turns the requirement of reading the policy on its head. An insured is required to read the policy at hand. It cannot abdicate this responsibility under the guise of waiting for anticipated changes. McMurry Construction may have expected a change, but there was, at the time the policy was issued and at the time of the first endorsement, no change to the exclusion of Richard Nelson from coverage. [¶ 36] The cover letter on which McMurry Construction places so much importance also said [p]lease check the policy and let us know if any coverage needs to be added or amended. McMurry Construction never bothered to take this step. Under the circumstances, we agree with the district court that summary judgment in favor of BW Insurance was appropriate.