Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Huether v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 1, 2015

Timothy Huether and TK Huether Farms, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Nodak Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from the District Court of Ransom County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jerod E. Tufte, Judge.

Fallon M. Kelly, Lisbon, for plaintiff and appellant.

Mark R. Western (argued) and William P. Harrie (on brief), Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee.

Daniel J. Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Dale V. Sandstrom, Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

OPINION

Daniel J. Crothers, Justice.

Page 445

[¶1] Timothy Huether appeals from a district court summary judgment dismissing his insurance claim against Nodak Mutual Insurance Company, " Nodak Mutual." Huether argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Nodak Mutual because it misinterpreted the terms of the insurance policy. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Huether contracted with Nodak Mutual to provide insurance coverage for his house, buildings and structures on his farm. The coverage was under Nodak Mutual's Farm and Ranch Policy. The Farm and Ranch Policy did not provide insurance coverage for grain dryers.

Page 446

Huether added an equipment endorsement insuring his agricultural equipment, which included a grain handler dryer. A fire destroyed the grain handler dryer, fans and parts. Nodak Mutual's agricultural endorsement provided coverage for " direct physical loss or damage caused by perils 1 through 10." Huether's Farm and Ranch Policy listed fire as Peril 1.

[¶3] Damage from fire was a " direct physical loss or damage" and Nodak Mutual paid Huether $278,187.44 for damage to the grain dryer, control room and grain handling equipment. Huether does not contest the coverage or payment for those items, but claims an additional $82,954.77 in expenses for transporting to and drying his crops at other grain drying facilities. Nodak Mutual denied Huether's claim because the agricultural equipment endorsement covered " direct physical loss or damage" and did not cover loss-of-use. Huether sued Nodak Mutual seeking damages for the denied claim. The district court found Huether's claim was not covered under the policy and granted summary judgment in favor of Nodak Mutual. Huether appealed.

II

[¶4] This Court's review of a summary judgment is well ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.