Independent School District v. Coregis Insurance

MEMORANDUM *

The magistrate judge correctly determined that Coregis Insurance Company *494 complied with the plain language of the insurance policy issued to the Independent School District of Boise City when Coregis cancelled coverage. Among other events, the policy permitted Coregis, under section A(2)(b)(5) of the cancellation and non-renewal endorsement, to cancel the agreement after it had been in effect for more that sixty days for “[l]oss or decrease in reinsurance which provided us with coverage for all or part of the risk insured.” It is undisputed that the policy had been in effect for more than sixty days and that Coregis was unable to obtain reinsurance for the peril of terrorism, an insured risk under the policy, after September 11, 2001, and school shootings in Colorado.

Although the policy also contained a rate guarantee endorsement in which Coregis agreed “to keep this policy in effect and that rates will not increase more than 3% per year for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 policy years” assuming certain conditions not relevant here, the two endorsements can be read in harmony. See Selkirk Seed Co. v. State Ins. Fund, 135 Idaho 434, 437 , 18 P.3d 956, 959 (2000)…

dissenting:

Plaintiff School District purchased a school liability and property insurance policy from Defendant Coregis. On this appeal, we are called on to construe two endorsements to that policy. Because I disagree with the majority’s construction of these endorsements, I respectfully dissent.

When construing a contract under Idaho law, a reviewing court must first determine whether or not the policy contains any ambiguity. Clark v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 138 Idaho 538 , 66 P.3d 242, 244 (2003). “This determination is a question of law.” Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. v. Idaho Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 141 Idaho 660 , 115 P.3d 751, 754 (2005). A policy provision is ambiguous if “it is reasonably subject to conflicting interpretations.” Id. (quoting N. Pac. Ins. Co. v. Mai, 130 Idaho 251 , 939 P.2d 570, 572 (1997)). If the policy is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, then its meaning is a question of fact. Clark, 66 P.3d at 245 .

The majority affirms the grant summary judgement in favor of Coregis by holding that the policy is unambiguous and gave Coregis the right to cancel the insurance policy upon the loss of reinsurance. Any fair reading of the policy…