Southern District Finds Watercraft Exclusion Ambiguous: United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hall
A case handed down by the Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017 found a watercraft exclusion in a homeowners’ policy ambiguous based on the facts of the case and found the policy did cover liability for a boating injury.
The exclusion in the United Fire & Casualty Company homeowners’ policy barred coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of watercraft “owned by or rented to an insured.” The insureds at issue were Jeffrey Cox and his two sons, Lucas Cox and Jared Cox. The plaintiff, Zachary Hall, was injured by their alleged negligence when Lucas started the boat’s engine while Hall was swimming, which caused the propeller to sever Hall’s foot. United Fire acknowledged coverage under Jeffrey’s boat and umbrella policies, but it relied on the exclusion to deny coverage under the homeowners’ policy. At issue was whether the boat was owned by an insured, which is where the facts took a turn for the somewhat unusual.
United Fire argued Jeffrey owned the boat, such that it would be excluded. However, the boat was actually owned by the Jeffrey L. Cox Living Trust. Jeffrey was a grantor, the sole trustee, and a beneficiary of the trust. Lucas and Jared would become beneficiaries of the trust upon Jeffrey’s death. Ultimately, the court found that Jeffrey did not own the boat in his individual capacity (i.e., his capacity as an insured) and that, therefore, the boat was not owned by an insured and the exclusion did not apply.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the Supreme Court of Missouri decision in Manner v. Schiermeier, 393 S.W.3d 58 (Mo.banc 2013), which had held that (i) where a term is not defined in a policy, the term will be viewed in the meaning that would ordinarily be understood by the layman who bought and paid for the policy; and (ii) because there are “many dictionary definitions of the terms ‘owner’ and ‘owned’ the terms were ambiguous.” Turning to the United Fire policy before it, the court reasoned, “Here, similarly, the two homeowner’s policies did not define the term ‘owned by.’ Moreover, this case involved titled property which was subject to the terms of a trust. Under those circumstances there is a distinction between ownership in an individual capacity and ownership as trustee. Thus, under the facts of this case, where the policy documents do not define the term ‘owned by’ and there is a separation of the rights of the individuals by virtue of the trust, the term ‘owned by’ is ambiguous. Where policy language is ambiguous, the language must be interpreted in favor of the insured.”
The court concluded, “Jeffrey did not hold legal title to the boat in his individual capacity. Instead, legal title to the boat was held by Jeffrey in his capacity as trustee.”
related services
About Insurance Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Insurance Blog examines topics and developments of interest to insurance carriers, with a particular focus on Missouri, Illinois and Kansas law. Learn more about our blog editors, Richard Woolf and Philip Sumner, and our Insurance practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Insurance Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Insurance Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Insurance Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.