Colmore
Colmore v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
The Appellants — Rupert Colmore, Eunice Colmore, Colmore Management Company LLC, and Colmore Properties LP (collectively, the “Colmores”); and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) — appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Royal Indemnity Company (“Royal”). The Appellants challenge the district court’s holdings that (1) Royal had no duty to defend the Colmores in the underlying actions, and (2) there was no need to certify issues to the Montana Supreme Court. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision. The district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
As to the duty to defend, the Appellants make two arguments. Their first argument is that because Royal failed to unequivocally deny coverage, it had a duty to defend the Colmores under Montana law. They also claim that the workers’ compensation exclusion within the Royal policy does not bar coverage to Eunice Colmore or the Colmore Entities during the pendency of underlying claims.