Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.

11 Citing cases

  1. K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

    2013 N.D. 57 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Listing state supreme courts reaching this conclusion

    [¶ 8] Interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal. Tibert, 2012 ND 81, ¶ 9, 816 N.W.2d 31;Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 5, 806 N.W.2d 146. This Court independently examines and construes the insurance contract to decide whether there is coverage.

  2. Rodenburg LLP v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

    468 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (D.N.D. 2020)

    Ambiguity in an insurance policy "exists when the language can be reasonably construed as having at least two alternative meanings." Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 13, 806 N.W.2d 146 (cleaned up).

  3. Lexstar Constr., LLC v. AGCS Marine Ins. Co.

    Case No. 1:16-cv-423 (D.N.D. Aug. 16, 2019)

    policy's exclusions and limitations of coverage." Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 16, 806 N.W.2d 146 (quoting 1 Robert D. Goodman, John C. Dockery & Matthew S. Hackell, New Appleman Law of Liab. Ins. § 1.04[1] (2d ed. 2011) (citations omitted). "An exclusionary provision, or the absence of one, cannot be read to provide coverage that does not otherwise exist.

  4. Kath v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co.

    2024 N.D. 190 (N.D. 2024)

    If coverage does not exist, our inquiry ends because an exclusion cannot be read to create coverage. Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 16, 806 N.W.2d 146. If coverage exists, we will examine the policy's exclusions.

  5. Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Ins., Inc.

    2018 N.D. 218 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 22 times
    Analyzing identical contractual liability exclusion and holding that the exclusion did not apply because the claims against the additional insured were direct claims of tort liability

    Forsman , 2017 ND 266, ¶ 11, 903 N.W.2d 524 ; K & L Homes , 2013 ND 57, ¶ 9, 829 N.W.2d 724. "If and only if a coverage provision applies to the harm at issue will the court then examine the policy’s exclusions and limitations of coverage." Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. , 2011 ND 197, ¶ 16, 806 N.W.2d 146 (quoting 1 Robert D. Goodman, John C. Dockery & Matthew S. Hackell, New Appleman Law of Liab. Ins. § 1.04[1] (2d ed. 2011) (citations omitted) ). "An exclusionary provision, or the absence of one, cannot be read to provide coverage that does not otherwise exist." Id. "Similarly, while an exception to an exclusion results in coverage, ‘an exception to an exclusion is incapable of initially providing coverage; rather, an exception may become applicable if, and only if, there is an initial grant of coverage under the policy and the relevant exclusion containing the exception operates to preclude coverage.

  6. Forsman v. Blues, Brews & Bar-B-Ques, Inc.

    2017 N.D. 266 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 26 times
    Noting "arising out of" in an insurance policy typically means causally connected rather than proximately caused

    K & L Homes, 2013 ND 57, ¶ 9, 829 N.W.2d 724. "If and only if a coverage provision applies to the harm at issue will the court then examine the policy's exclusions and limitations of coverage." Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 16, 806 N.W.2d 146 (quoting 1 Robert D. Goodman, John C. Dockery & Matthew S. Hackell, New Appleman Law of Liab. Ins. § 1.04[1] (2d ed. 2011) (citations omitted). "An exclusionary provision, or the absence of one, cannot be read to provide coverage that does not otherwise exist."

  7. Gillespie v. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co.

    2016 N.D. 193 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Construing the phrase "legally entitled to recover" in the context of underinsured motorist coverage

    [¶ 8] “Underinsured motorist insurance is a first party coverage arrangement that entitles an insured to compensation for injuries from the [insured's] insurer.” Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 9, 806 N.W.2d 146 (quoting 3 Alan I. Widiss & Jeffrey E. Thomas, Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 32.1 n. 1 (3d 2005)). The minimum requirements for underinsured motorist coverage are governed by N.D.C.C. §§ 26.1–40–15.1 to 26.1–40–15.

  8. Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co.

    876 N.W.2d 460 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing “legally entitled to collect” from “owner or operator” of underinsured motor vehicle

    [¶ 5] “Underinsured motorist insurance is a first party coverage arrangement that entitles an insured to compensation for injuries from the insurer.” Wisness v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 9, 806 N.W.2d 146 (quoting 3 Alan I. Widiss & Jeffrey E. Thomas, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 32.1 n. 1 (3d ed.2005)). In North Dakota, underinsured motorist coverage is governed by statute.

  9. Tibert v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.

    2012 N.D. 81 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 28 times

    [¶ 9] Interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 ND 197, ¶ 5, 806 N.W.2d 146;Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Thies, 2008 ND 164, ¶ 7, 755 N.W.2d 852;State v. North Dakota State Univ., 2005 ND 75, ¶ 12, 694 N.W.2d 225. We independently examine and construe the insurance contract to determine whether there is coverage.

  10. Selective Way Ins. Co. v. CSC Gen. Contractors, Inc.

    994 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    "Our goal when interpreting insurance policies, as when construing other contracts, is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting." Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. , 806 N.W.2d 146, 148 (N.D. 2011). "We look first to the language of the insurance contract, and if the policy language is clear on its face, there is no room for construction." Id.