Opinion ID: 798288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligence Claim: Tort vs. Contract

Text: Bartile begins by attacking the applicability of the district court’s distinction between coverage for actions sounding in tort and contract. Notwithstanding the district court’s attempt to characterize the negligence claim in the Fourth ACC as contractually-based, Bartile reasons, it is actually a tort claim. It follows, Bartile argues, that the district court’s reason for concluding that the resulting breach was neither unusual or unexpected--because a breach of contract is always within the realm of possibility whenever two parties contract-- was invalid, as was its further conclusion that the breach of contract involved no “accident.” We need not linger long over this attempted distinction. 3 Coverage here does not depend on whether the claims against Bartile sound in tort or contract. As we explained in Bartile I, regardless of the label applied to a claim, “[u]nder [both] Wyoming and Utah law, the natural results of an insured’s negligent and unworkmanlike construction do not constitute an occurrence triggering coverage under a CGL policy.” Bartile I, 618 F.3d at 1174 (internal quotation marks and 3 Bartile devotes a significant portion of its brief to proving that Wyoming law would hold that conduct constituting both a breach of contract and a tort can trigger a duty to defend. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 20-27. But for the reasons we have stated, the tort/contract distinction is essentially irrelevant to the applicable definition of an “accident” discussed in Bartile I. Accordingly, we do not discuss further Bartile’s argument on this point. -13- alterations omitted); see also id. n.17 (stating difference in Wyoming and Utah law concerning whether CGL policies cover contract claims was irrelevant to choice-of-law issue because real issue was “whether the natural results of an insured’s unworkmanlike or negligent construction can constitute an occurrence,” a question on which “the law of Wyoming and Utah is in agreement, answering in the negative”). The issue therefore is not whether the Fourth ACC contains a tort claim, but whether the Fourth ACC seeks to hold Bartile liable for something other than the natural results of its own negligent and unworkmanlike construction. Bartile has failed to show this is the case. 4