Spendlove v. State Farm Fire Casu , 2006 MT 238N ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                          No. DA 06-0027
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2006 MT 238N
    SANDRA KAY SPENDLOVE,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:         District Court of the First Judicial District,
    In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV 2004-905,
    The Honorable Thomas C. Honzel, Presiding Judge.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Thomas A. Budewitz, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Bradley J. Luck and Randall J. Colbert, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson,
    PLLP, Missoula, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: August 30, 2006
    Decided: September 19, 2006
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
    Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
    cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
    Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
    this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
    Montana Reports.
    ¶2     Sandra Kay Spendlove (Spendlove) appeals from the Order of the District Court
    for the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, granting the motion for summary
    judgment filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm). Spendlove lives
    in Grizzly Gulch outside Helena, Montana. She insured her premises through State Farm
    under a homeowner’s policy and a personal liability umbrella policy (PLUP). Both
    policies were in effect on June 22, 2004.
    ¶3     On that date, Spendlove’s neighboring property owner, Al Ballard and Ecosafe
    Gold Recovery, LLC (collectively Ecosafe), filed a complaint against Spendlove in the
    First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, Cause No. ADV-2004-464. Ecosafe’s
    action alleges that Spendlove infringed upon Ecosafe’s water rights. Ecosafe alleges that
    it owns and operates a gold mine downstream from the Spendlove residence and Ecosafe
    owns water rights that originate in Grizzly Gulch that it uses in its mining operation.
    Ecosafe claims that Spendlove wrongfully has impounded water on her property by
    failing to maintain an unobstructed spillway.      Ecosafe contends that this wrongful
    impoundment resulted in a temporary loss of its water thereby rendering it unable to
    operate its gold mine.
    2
    ¶4     Spendlove contacted State Farm to see whether coverage existed under either her
    homeowner’s policy or the PLUP. State Farm initially provided a defense under a
    reservation of rights until it could determine if coverage existed. State Farm determined
    that no coverage existed, but continued paying Spendlove’s defense costs for another
    thirty days while she found substitute legal counsel. Spendlove then brought actions
    against State Farm for a breach of contract in violation of the Montana’s Unfair Trade
    Practices Act. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds it had no
    duty to defend or indemnify Spendlove in the Ecosafe litigation because Ecosafe did not
    allege property damage, bodily injury, or personal injury. The District Court agreed and
    granted summary judgment. This appeal followed.
    ¶5     Spendlove contends the District Court erred when it determined that Ecosafe’s
    underlying claim does not allege physical damage to tangible property. She argues the
    District Court improperly focused on the competing water rights held by Spendlove and
    Ecosafe rather than the fact that Ecosafe alleges that Spendlove has prevented it from
    getting and using water that it needs to conduct its mining operation. She argues that
    Ecosafe’s complaint does not seek to litigate water right priorities, but seeks relief based
    upon Spendlove’s alleged conduct in interfering with the flow of water and thus
    preventing its use by Ecosafe.
    ¶6     Spendlove contends that Ecosafe’s complaint, in fact, does allege that the water
    has been injured in the sense that it has been “wasted.” She further argues that the
    seasonal nature of water in the Grizzly Gulch area and the resulting seasonal operation of
    Ecosafe’s mine leads to the conclusion that Spendlove’s alleged interference with the
    3
    flow of water during the time of year when water would otherwise flow through the
    culverts actually destroys the water itself much as if it were contaminated by pollution.
    ¶7     We review de novo a District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment, based
    on the same criteria applied by the District Court. Hardy v. Vision Service Plan, 
    2005 MT 232
    , ¶ 10, 
    328 Mont. 385
    , ¶ 10, 
    120 P.3d 402
    , ¶ 10. We must determine whether the
    court correctly found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and whether the court
    applied the law correctly. Hardy, ¶ 10.
    ¶8     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, paragraph 3(d), of
    our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provide for memorandum
    opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that Spendlove’s
    appeal lacks merit. Settled Montana law clearly controls the legal issues presented and
    the District Court correctly interpreted these legal issues.
    ¶9     Affirmed.
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
    /S/ JIM RICE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-0027

Citation Numbers: 2006 MT 238N

Filed Date: 9/19/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014