Foremost Insurance Company v. Putzier

606 P.2d 987 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On September 9, 1974, Robert C. Knievel, a/k/a Evel Knievel, attempted to jump the Snake River Canyon near Twin Falls, Idaho on a jet-powered motorcycle. Knievel and Snake River Enterprises, Inc. were required to secure a land use permit from the State of Idaho and a license from Twin Falls County. Knievel's attorneys entered into negotiations with Cardell Smith, a vice president of the Fidelity Marketing Corporation insurance brokerage. These negotiations culminated in the issuance by P to Knievel and Enterprises of an insurance policy, which policy was later superseded by a second policy, effective August 28, 1974. In the second policy, there was an exclusion designated G332 which provided: 'It is agreed that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of riot, civil commotion or mob action or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of any of the foregoing.' Knievel attempted the jump on September 4, 1974. During the preceding day or two, numerous unknown individuals damaged or destroyed the goods and equipment of Harold Putzier and Bob Crandall (Ds), each of whom was a concessionaire at the time. Ds filed an action against Knievel and Enterprises to recover compensation for their damages. P instituted an action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that, pursuant to exclusion G332, it was not liable on the policy for the damage incurred by Ds. Named as defendants in the declaratory judgment action were Putzier, Crandall, Knievel, and Enterprises, among others. The trial court held the exclusion valid and the damages sustained by Ds fell within the exclusion. It held that P was liable to Knievel and Enterprises for attorney fees incurred in defending against the property damage claims of Putzier and Crandall, but not for attorney fees incurred in representation on the issue of presence or absence of policy coverage. Ds appealed. Knievel and Enterprises bring one appeal from that judgment, as do Putzier and Crandall.