Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Stuntman Inc. Hal Needham, Heidi Von Beltz

861 F.2d 203 INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STUNTMAN INC.; Hal Needham, Heidi Von Beltz, Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-5655. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 6, 1988. Decided Aug. 5, 1988. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 7, 1988. Jack M. Staitman, Staitman & Snyder, Encino, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Harvey A. Schneider and Steven W. Murray, Encino, Cal., for defendants-appellees Stuntman, Inc., and Hal Needham. Haskell J. Shapiro and Belli & Sabih, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellee Heidi von Beltz. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before PREGERSON, CANBY and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Stuntman, Inc., et al. on the ground that the district court misinterpreted certain provisions of the excess commercial liability policy it issued to Stuntman. We affirm.BACKGROUND 2 In August 1979, Interstate issued an excess insurance policy to Stuntman, the company providing stunt services for the producers of the film…

Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Stuntman, Inc., et al. on the ground that the district court misinterpreted certain provisions of the excess commercial liability policy it issued to Stuntman. We affirm.

*204 BACKGROUND

In August 1979, Interstate issued an excess insurance policy to Stuntman, the company providing stunt services for the producers of the film “Cannonball Run.” The policy provided coverage in the event that Stuntman’s liabilities exceeded certain primary insurance coverage or benefits. In June 1980, Heidi Von Beltz, a stuntwoman working on the film, was involved in an accident that left her a quadriplegic. Von Beltz sued Stuntman and others for the injuries she sustained. A jury trial culminated in a $7 million damages award. The verdict was reduced to approximately $4.6 million as a result of Von Beltz’ contributory negligence. That result is being appealed, so the possibility remains that liability could exceed primary insurance coverage or benefits. Interstate subsequently filed a complaint in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that even if Von Beltz’ recovery…

dissenting:

I dissent from the court’s conclusion that the policy’s exclusion for “bodily injuries” to participants does not encompass all of the injuries sustained by Von Beltz. Von Beltz and Stuntman concede that the exclusion precludes recovery for the bodily injury itself, as well as for mental and emotional distress resulting from bodily injury. In my view, that includes all of the injuries suffered by Von Beltz.

The district court and the majority of this court conclude that, despite the exclusion for bodily injury, Von Beltz can recover for “shock” (there being no sickness or disease) and the mental and emotional distress resulting from shock. Under the facts of this case, I am unable to comprehend damages for injuries from shock that are not damages from bodily injury. There was only one accident, and all damages result from the terrible bodily injuries Von Beltz suffered in it.

My view is reinforced by the rather obvious intent of Interstate’s policy to cover liability for injuries to the public and to exclude liability for injuries to participants. I agree with the majority that exclusions are to be strictly construed against the insurer that drafted the policy, but I…