High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co.

    14 F.4th 976 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 16 times

    In settlement of the resulting claims brought by the driver's estate and the passenger, United Fire paid the combined $3 million limits of the commercial auto and umbrella policy, but denied coverage under the CGL policy based on two exclusions to the CGL Policy: the Aircraft, Auto or Watercraft ("AAW") exclusion, and the Multiple Liability Coverages Limitation ("MLCL") endorsement. High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co. , No. CV 18-163-M-DWM, 2020 WL 42722, at **1, 3 (D. Mont. Jan. 3, 2020) (" High Country III "). United Fire argued that the injuries arose out of the use of a vehicle pulling a loaded equipment trailer, and thus arose out of the use of an "auto," precluding coverage under the CGL policy pursuant to the AAW exclusion. Id. at *3. Additionally, because coverage was provided under the commercial auto policy, United Fire argued that the CGL policy did not provide any coverage, pursuant to the MLCL endorsement.

  2. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ward

    549 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (D. Mont. 2021)

    The primary case that the Wards rely on for the contrary position -- that the "bodily injury to any insured" exclusion is unenforceable because Policy violates the Simplification Act -- is distinguishable. The Wards argue this case is controlled by High Country Paving v. United Fire , 2020 WL 42722 (D. Mont. Jan. 3, 2020), appeal filed (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020). There, the insurance policy at issue contained two exclusions that unambiguously excluded coverage under the facts presented.