No. 6:15-CV-01170-JTM-JPO (D. Kan.)
TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
E. Bacharach Circuit Judge.
appeal involves interpretation of a liability insurance
policy's limit. The policy limits the insured's
liability to $100, 000 "for all damages, including
damages for care, loss of services or death, arising out of
'bodily injury' sustained by any one person in any
one auto accident." Appellant's App'x at 54. We
must decide whether the $100, 000 limit applies separately to
multiple claimants incurring damages because of the same
person's injuries. We answer "no."
Yudi Hernandez is injured in a car accident, and she and her
father incur damages.
Yudi Hernandez, a minor, was injured in a car accident.
Because Yudi was a minor, her father was responsible for
paying her medical expenses, which exceeded $350, 000. Yudi
and her father settled with the driver's insurer,
Electric Insurance Company. Electric agreed to pay Mr.
Hernandez $100, 000 and allow Yudi to file a declaratory
judgment action to determine whether Electric was liable for
another $100, 000 "per person" limit to Yudi.
Electric agreed to pay Yudi $100, 000 if she prevailed in the
declaratory judgment action.
light of this agreement, Yudi filed a declaratory judgment
action, claiming that the per-person limit separately applies
to each person who incurs damage. Electric disagrees, stating
that the liability limit covers all claims growing out of
injuries to one person in the auto. The district court
granted summary judgment to Electric, and Yudi appeals.
We engage in de novo review and interpret the policy under
review de novo the district court's ruling on summary
judgment, using the same standard applicable in district
court. Red Panther Chem. Co. v. Ins. Co. of
Pa., 43 F.3d 514, 517 (10th Cir. 1994). Applying this
standard, we determine whether a genuine issue exists on any
material fact, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Yudi. Id. Through this view of the
evidence, we engage in de novo review of the district
court's interpretation of the insurance policy. See
Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Am. Fence Co., 115 F.3d 805,
806 (10th Cir. 1997) ("When the relevant facts are
undisputed, we review the district court's interpretation
of an insurance contract de novo.").
interpret the policy, we apply state law. Pub. Serv. Co.
of Okla. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 53 F.3d 1090, 1096
(10th Cir. 1995). The parties agree that Kansas law governs.
Thus, we follow Kansas law when interpreting the policy.
See Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nanodetex Corp., 733
F.3d 1018, 1022 (10th Cir. 2013) (applying the state law that
both parties agreed was applicable). Kansas law requires us
to ascertain the parties' intent. Liggatt v.
Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co., 46 P.3d 1120, 1125 (Kan.
2002). "If the terms of the contract are clear, there is
no room for rules of construction, and the intent of the
parties is determined from the contract itself."
interpret the insurance policy from the perspective of a
"reasonably prudent insured." Am. Family Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Wilkins, 179 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Kan. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The policy is ambiguous
only if reasonably prudent insureds could interpret the
language in different ways. Id. at 1109-10. If the
policy language is ambiguous, we adopt the construction most
favorable to the insured. Id. at 1110.
The policy unambiguously limits Electric's liability to
$100, 000 for the damages Ms. Hernandez and her father
The insurance policy provides:
The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each
person for Bodily Injury Liability is our maximum limit of
liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss
of services or death, arising out of "bodily