Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co v. Terry Reynolds , 626 F. App'x 660 ( 2015 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-3530
___________________________
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Rambo
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Terry Reynolds
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
Rodger Smith; Carla Smith; Ellie Slater; Jean Shown; Faye Shown; Roger Brown;
Claudine Brown
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
___________________________
No. 14-3596
___________________________
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
David Rambo; Terry Reynolds
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
Rodger Smith; Carla Smith; Ellie Slater; Jean Shown; Faye Shown; Roger Brown;
Claudine Brown
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: December 16, 2015
Filed: December 29, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company is the reinsurer for insurance policies
held by Terry Reynolds and David Rambo. In this action it seeks a declaratory
judgment that there was no coverage for claims brought against Reynolds and Rambo
by Rodger Smith and six other homeowners in a Missouri state court action. A
magistrate judge1 granted summary judgment for Grinnell, and Smith and Reynolds
appeal. We affirm.
In the underlying lawsuit, the Smith plaintiffs alleged that Rambo and Reynolds
were liable for nuisance and other harms caused by the operation of their swine and
1
The Honorable Matt J. Whitworth, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-
poultry farms. The magistrate judge concluded that the pollution liability exclusion
in Rambo’s policy, as well as the business activities and custom feeding exclusions
in Reynolds’s policy, were unambiguous and precluded coverage for the claims
against them.
We conclude upon de novo review that the magistrate judge did not err in
granting summary judgment. See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv.,
Inc., 751 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard); id. at 883–84
(standard for interpretation of an insurance policy under Missouri law). Accordingly,
we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-