Ass Kickin Ranch, LLC v. North Star Mutual Insurance Co. , 2012 S.D. LEXIS 123 ( 2012 )

#26291-a-DG
2012 S.D. 73IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
ASS KICKIN RANCH, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
NORTH STAR MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE MARK BARNETT
Judge
****
LEE C. “KIT” McCAHREN of
Olinger, Lovald, McCahren
& Reimers, PC
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellant.
DOUGLAS A. ABRAHAM of
May, Adam, Gerdes, Thompson, LLP
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellee.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON AUGUST 27, 2012
OPINION FILED 10/17/12
#26291
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice
[¶1.] North Star Mutual Insurance Company (North Star) denied coverage
for two unassembled wind turbines that were destroyed in a fire on Ass Kickin
Ranch’s property. North Star claimed a policy exclusion permitted it to deny
coverage for the loss. Ass Kickin Ranch (Ranch) sued North Star, asserting North
Star committed a breach of contract and acted in bad faith in denying coverage for
the unassembled wind turbines. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. The circuit court granted North Star’s motion for summary judgment,
finding the policy exclusion applied. Ranch appealed. We affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Ranch purchased an insurance policy from North Star in 2009. This
insurance policy included coverage for unscheduled farm personal property from
November 14, 2009, to November 14, 2010. On March 31, 2010, the shop building
on Ranch’s property burned down. The building and its contents were destroyed in
the fire. The contents of the building included the complete set of unassembled
parts for two electric generating wind turbines.
[¶3.] The unassembled wind turbines were purchased by Ranch with a
check which indicated on the memo line that the payment was for “2 windmills.”
Each of the unassembled wind turbines consisted of a tower, a generator, a
transmission, blades, and controls. The wind turbines had never been assembled or
installed on Ranch’s property prior to being destroyed. In order to complete
installation, Ranch would have needed to pour cement footings to support the
-1-
#26291
assembled wind turbines and then connect the assembled wind turbines to a power
source.
[¶4.] Ranch made a $100,000 claim on its insurance policy to recover for its
loss of the unassembled wind turbines. However, North Star denied Ranch’s claim,
concluding coverage for the unassembled wind turbines was expressly excluded by
the policy. Under Coverage F, subparagraph 5(g), the policy excluded coverage for
“fences, windmills, windchargers, or their towers.”
[¶5.] In February 2011, Ranch sued North Star alleging breach of contract
for North Star’s failure to pay Ranch’s $100,000 claim. Further, Ranch sought an
award of punitive damages based on its allegation that North Star acted in bad
faith by failing to properly evaluate Ranch’s claim. 1 The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment. After a hearing, the circuit court granted North Star’s
motion for summary judgment, finding the policy exclusion applied. The circuit
court’s rationale for granting North Star’s motion was set forth in its order and
memorandum decision. Ranch appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in denying
its motion for summary judgment and in granting summary judgment in favor of
North Star.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶6.] When reviewing a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, this
Court only decides “whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the
1. Ranch’s allegations of bad faith and its request for punitive damages were
not addressed by Ranch in its brief. As a result, this issue is waived on
appeal.
-2-
#26291
law was correctly applied.” Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, 2008 S.D. 56,
¶ 6, 752 N.W.2d 658, 662 (quoting Bordeaux v. Shannon Cnty. Sch., 2005 S.D. 117,
¶ 11, 707 N.W.2d 123, 126). “With the material facts undisputed, [this Court’s]
review is limited to determining whether the trial court correctly applied the law.”
De Smet Ins. Co. of S.D. v. Gibson, 1996 S.D. 102, ¶ 5, 552 N.W.2d 98, 99. If there is
any legal basis to support the circuit court’s decision, the case will be affirmed on
appeal. Bozied v. City of Brookings, 2001 S.D. 150, ¶ 8, 638 N.W.2d 264, 268.
[¶7.] “Insurance contract interpretation is a question of law, reviewable de
novo.” Gibson, 1996 S.D. 102, ¶ 5, 552 N.W.2d at 99 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Vostad, 520 N.W.2d 273, 275 (S.D. 1994)). “This includes determining
whether an insurance contract is ambiguous.” Roden v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 2003
S.D. 130, ¶ 6, 671 N.W.2d 622, 625 (quoting Nat’l Sun Indus., Inc. v. S.D. Farm
Bureau Ins. Co., 1999 S.D. 63, ¶ 7, 596 N.W.2d 45, 46).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[¶8.] Neither party argues there is a genuine issue of material fact. Instead,
the main issue addressed by the parties is whether the policy exclusion applies to
the circumstances of this case. The parties dispute whether the unassembled wind
turbines fit within the policy’s exclusion of coverage for “fences, windmills,
windchargers, or their towers.” This is a question of contract interpretation. As a
result, the only question before this Court on appeal is whether the circuit court
correctly applied the law.
[¶9.] “[T]he scope of coverage of an insurance policy is determined from the
contractual intent and the objectives of the parties as expressed in the contract.”
-3-
#26291
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schilling, 520 N.W.2d 884, 887 (S.D. 1994).
“When an insurer seeks to invoke a policy exclusion as a means of avoiding
coverage, the insurer has the burden of proving that the exclusion applies.”
Opperman v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 S.D. 85, ¶ 4, 566 N.W.2d 487, 489
(quoting Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Purdy, 483 N.W.2d 197, 199 (S.D. 1992)).
Where the provisions of an insurance policy are fairly
susceptible to different interpretations, the interpretation most
favorable to the insured should be adopted. [However,] [t]his
rule of liberal construction in favor of the insured and strictly
against the insurer applies only where the language of the
insurance contract is ambiguous and susceptible of more than
one interpretation. . . .
Nat’l Sun Indus., 1999 S.D. 63, ¶ 18, 596 N.W.2d at 48-49. “The fact that the
parties differ as to the contract’s interpretation does not create an ambiguity.”
Zochert v. Nat’l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 1998 S.D. 34, ¶ 5, 576 N.W.2d 531,
532 (citing Alverson v. Nw. Nat’l Cas. Co., 1997 S.D. 9, ¶ 8, 559 N.W.2d 234, 235).
[¶10.] Further, a court may not “seek out a strained or unusual meaning for
the benefit of the insured.” Rumpza v. Donalar Enters., Inc., 1998 S.D. 79, ¶ 12, 581
N.W.2d 517, 521 (quoting Olson v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 1996 S.D. 66, ¶ 6, 549
N.W.2d 199, 200). Instead, “[a]n insurance contract’s language must be construed
according to its plain and ordinary meaning and a court cannot make a forced
construction or a new contract for the parties.” Stene v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 1998 S.D. 95, ¶ 14, 583 N.W.2d 399, 402 (alteration in original) (quoting
Schilling, 520 N.W.2d at 887). Essentially, this means that when the terms of an
insurance policy are unambiguous, these terms “cannot be enlarged or diminished
by judicial construction.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. v. Elliot, 523 N.W.2d 100, 102 (S.D.
1994) (citing O’Neill v. Blue Cross of W. Iowa & S.D., 366 N.W.2d 816, 818 (S.D.
-4-
#26291
1985)). Finally, “insurance policies must be subject to a reasonable interpretation
and not one that amounts to an absurdity.” Prokop v. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co., 457
N.W.2d 862, 864 (S.D. 1990) (citing Helmboldt v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 404
N.W.2d 55, 59 (S.D. 1987)).
[¶11.] In this case, the parties do not expressly assert the language of the
policy exclusion is ambiguous. Nevertheless, each party argues for a different
interpretation of the policy exclusion. North Star argues the policy language
excluding coverage for “fences, windmills, windchargers, or their towers”
encompasses all windmills and windchargers, regardless of whether or not they are
assembled, unassembled, functional, or nonfunctional. In contrast, Ranch argues
an unassembled wind turbine does not fit within the language of the policy
exclusion. According to Ranch, a “pile of parts” that has never been assembled on
the property does not constitute a windmill or a windcharger for purposes of the
policy exclusion. However, although North Star and Ranch interpret the policy
language differently, this does not automatically render the policy exclusion
ambiguous.
[¶12.] Because North Star’s policy did not provide definitions for the terms
within the policy exclusion, the circuit court properly relied on definitions from
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary as the plain and ordinary meanings of the
terms. The circuit court noted that according to Merriam-Webster’s, a “windmill”
was defined as “a mill or machine operated by the wind usually acting on oblique
vanes or sails that radiate from a horizontal shaft; especially: a wind-driven water
-5-
#26291
pump or electric generator.” Additionally, a “windcharger” was defined as “a
generator driven by a windmill and used to charge storage batteries.”
[¶13.] Ranch argues the unassembled wind turbines were not encompassed
within these definitions because the unassembled wind turbines have never been
capable of “spinning in the wind,” generating power, or charging storage batteries at
Ranch. However, the plain and ordinary meanings of “windmill” and “windcharger”
include Ranch’s unassembled wind turbines for several reasons. First, Ranch
acknowledged it purchased the wind turbines with the intent to use them to
generate electricity on the ranch. Thus, Ranch’s intended purpose for the
unassembled wind turbines fits within the plain and ordinary meanings of
“windmill” and “windcharger.” Next, the components of the unassembled wind
turbines (towers, generators, transmissions, blades, and controls) are encompassed
within the plain and ordinary meanings of “windmill” and “windcharger” because
the components were designed to function as “windmills” and “windchargers” upon
assembly.
[¶14.] Further, Ranch’s unassembled wind turbines consisted of the
components needed to create functioning “windmills” and “windchargers.” Ranch
possessed towers, generators, transmissions, blades, and controls. The only
additional elements needed to allow Ranch’s unassembled wind turbines to operate
as “windmills” and “windchargers” were cement footings and a power source. Thus,
although Ranch’s wind turbines were unassembled, they were generally
recognizable as “windmills” or “windchargers” because their components constituted
the parts required for their assembly and operation.
-6-
#26291
[¶15.] Finally, on the memo line of the check Ranch wrote to pay for the
unassembled wind turbines, Ranch indicated the check was written to pay for “2
windmills.” This notation is significant because it demonstrates Ranch understood
the unassembled wind turbines were windmills even though they were not yet
assembled and operating. Overall, the combination of Ranch’s intended purpose for
the unassembled wind turbines, the intended function of the unassembled wind
turbine components, Ranch’s understanding that the unassembled wind turbines
were windmills, and the fact that the unassembled wind turbines consisted of the
components needed to create functioning “windmills” and “windchargers” supports
the circuit court’s determination that the unassembled wind turbines were included
within the plain and ordinary meanings of “windmill” and “windcharger.” As a
result, the circuit court did not “incorrectly apply the law” in finding that the policy
exclusion was unambiguous and that the plain and ordinary meanings of “windmill”
and “windcharger” encompassed Ranch’s unassembled wind turbines.
[¶16.] Ranch further claims North Star should have added language to the
existing policy exclusion to explicitly exclude “all parts or components” if it meant
for the policy exclusion to apply to the unassembled wind turbines. However, there
is no indication in the policy that North Star meant to exclude “fences, windmills,
windchargers, or their towers” from coverage only if they were assembled and
operating. By using the policy exclusion’s existing language without any language
of limitation, North Star demonstrated its intent for the terms used in the policy
exclusion to be construed broadly. Essentially, North Star’s use of general terms
like “windmill” without language of limitation indicated it meant for the policy
-7-
#26291
exclusion to apply to all windmills, regardless of whether or not they were fully
assembled and operating. 2 Furthermore, as previously demonstrated above, the
plain and ordinary meanings of “windmill” and “windcharger” encompass the
unassembled wind turbines. Therefore, adding “all parts or components” language
to the existing policy exclusion was unnecessary because the terms used in the
policy exclusion already encompassed the unassembled wind turbines in this case.
[¶17.] Next, consideration of the implications of Ranch’s proposed
interpretation of the policy exclusion provides additional support for the circuit
court’s determination that the unassembled wind turbines were included within the
terms “windmill” and “windcharger.” Concluding that the policy exclusion for
“fences, windmills, windchargers, or their towers” is inapplicable to the
unassembled wind turbines solely because they are not fully assembled and
operating strains the meaning of the policy exclusion and diminishes the
significance of its terms. As previously discussed, an analysis of the plain and
ordinary meanings of “windmill” and “windcharger” establishes the policy exclusion
applies to the unassembled wind turbines. Therefore, finding coverage for Ranch by
limiting the policy exclusion’s application to fully assembled and operating
“windmills” and “windchargers” improperly strains the meaning of the policy
2. In this case, the unassembled wind turbines consisted of all of the parts
necessary for operation of a windmill. There may be cases where all
necessary parts are not present or where some part of the unit is non-
operational such as a car with a blown engine. Whether in those instances
the disputed item falls within a definition in an insurance policy we leave for
another day.
-8-
#26291
exclusion and diminishes the reach of its terms because this interpretation ignores
the plain and ordinary meaning of the policy exclusion.
[¶18.] Furthermore, the implementation of Ranch’s proposed interpretation
of the policy exclusion could lead to absurd results. For example, as the circuit
court emphasized, “an insured, who is faced with an imminent destructive tornado,
could remove the steering wheel from his or her sports car and suddenly the insured
would have coverage for his or her previously excluded sports car because it was not
fully assembled at the time of its destruction.”
[¶19.] Ranch attempts to distinguish the circuit court’s hypothetical from this
case by asserting that unlike removing one part from an assembled and functioning
vehicle, the unassembled wind turbines had never been assembled or capable of
operating on Ranch’s property. However, although the circuit court’s hypothetical
presents an extreme situation, it still demonstrates how Ranch’s proposed
interpretation of the policy exclusion could lead to absurd results. Therefore, the
circuit court’s rejection of Ranch’s proposed interpretation of the policy was not an
“incorrect application of the law” because such an interpretation would have
diminished the language of the policy exclusion, strained the policy exclusion’s
meaning, and resulted in absurdity.
[¶20.] Finally, due to the absence of controlling precedent on this issue in
South Dakota, the circuit court found the Appellate Court of Connecticut’s
determination in Robertson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 569 A.2d 565(Conn. App. Ct. 1990), to be persuasive in its consideration of whether to grant
summary judgment in favor of North Star. In Robertson, the plaintiff sued the
-9-
#26291
insurance company to recover benefits under his homeowner’s insurance policy for
the loss of a disassembled 1957 Gull Wing Mercedes he kept in his garage. Id. 569
A.2d at 565. The insurance company denied coverage, claiming the disassembled
car was excluded from coverage under the policy exclusion for “motorized land
vehicles . . . designed for travel on public roads as subject to motor vehicle
registration.” Id. 569 A.2d at 566.
[¶21.] The plaintiff asserted the policy exclusion did not apply to his
disassembled car. Id. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s determination
that the policy exclusion was unambiguous, the disassembled car was a motor
vehicle, and the policy exclusion applied. Id. The court concluded the disassembled
car was designed for highway travel and would be subject to vehicle registration
upon assembly. Id. Therefore, the car met the definition of “motor vehicle” despite
being disassembled. Id.
[¶22.] Similar to the plaintiff’s assertion in Robertson that the policy
exclusion for “motor vehicles” did not encompass a disassembled car, in this case
Ranch attempts to avoid application of the policy exclusion by claiming the terms
“windmill” and “windcharger” do not include unassembled wind turbines.
Additionally, like in Robertson where the court determined a disassembled car was
still a “motor vehicle” because it was designed for and capable of highway travel
upon assembly, in this case Ranch’s unassembled wind turbines were designed to
function as “windmills” and “wind chargers” and were capable of operating as such.
As a result, the Connecticut court’s rationale in Robertson provides further support
for the circuit court’s conclusion that the unassembled wind turbines were
-10-
#26291
“windmills” and “windchargers” subject to North Star’s policy exclusion, and that
North Star was thus excused from providing coverage for Ranch’s unassembled
wind turbines.
CONCLUSION
[¶23.] The circuit court correctly applied the law in determining Ranch’s
unassembled wind turbines were precluded from coverage under North Star’s policy
exclusion for “fences, windmills, windchargers, or their towers.” The language of
the policy exclusion was unambiguous and the plain and ordinary meanings of
“windmill” and “windcharger” encompassed the unassembled wind turbines. As a
result, the circuit court did not err in granting North Star’s motion for summary
judgment. Affirmed.
[¶24.] KONENKAMP, ZINTER, SEVERSON, and WILBUR, Justices, concur.
-11-