Opinion
No. 110,769.
2014-12-19
Nick DAVID, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, and Charlson–Wilson Insurance Agency, Defendant.
Appeal from Douglas District Court; Michael J. Malone, Judge.Nick David, of Lawrence, appellant pro se.Dale L. Beckerman and Scott M. Harris, of Deacy & Deacy, LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee.
Appeal from Douglas District Court; Michael J. Malone, Judge.
Nick David, of Lawrence, appellant pro se. Dale L. Beckerman and Scott M. Harris, of Deacy & Deacy, LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee.
Before ATCHESON, P.J., POWELL, J., and JOHNSON, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In 2010, Time Warner Cable, Inc. (TWC) sued Nick David, Theoryshare LLC, and others in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging, inter alia, numerous intentional violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Among other things, TWC specifically alleged that David—through Theoryshare, which David owned and operated—was involved in the sale of “hacked modems” which enabled the theft of high-speed data services provided by TWC. David sought to have his homeowner's insurance carrier, Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company (Travelers), defend him pursuant to his policy. After investigating the matter, Travelers denied it had a duty to defend or indemnify Theoryshare, denied it had a duty to David because the injuries alleged by TWC were not the result of an “occurrence” or “accident” as defined in the policy, and denied the damages were covered by the policy. David ultimately settled the case with TWC, which included a monetary judgment against him. The following year, David brought the present suit against Travelers, alleging breach of contract and negligence claims arising out of Travelers' failure to defend and indemnify him. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, ruling it did not have a duty to defend David in the lawsuit with TWC. David timely appeals.
We have independently reviewed the matter and summarily affirm the district court's well-reasoned opinion. We agree Travelers did not have a duty to defend or indemnify David. The intentional acts and the economic damages sought by TWC in its suit against David were not covered by Travelers' insurance policy. Specifically, the intentional acts complained of did not fall under the “occurrence” or “accident” provisions of the policy, and economic damages sought were not the type of property or physical damage covered by the policy. We further agree that when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to David, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the factual findings made by the district court are supported by substantial competent evidence, and Travelers is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, we affirm the district court's order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(2), (3), and (5) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 67).
Affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(2), (3), and (5).