Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Center Mutual Ins. Co.

20020073 Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance
Company, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Center Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Ward County
Judge Gary A. Holum
Nature of Action: Insurance
Counsel:
Appellant: #Bucklin, Klemin, McBride & Schweigert, P.C.
Appellee: Zuger Kirmis & Smith
Term: 09/2002   Argument: 09/05/2002  2:45pm
ND cite: 2003 ND 50
NW cite: 658 N.W.2d 363

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
A. Did the District Court err in determining that the personal auto insurance policy issued by Center Mutual Insurance Company to Steven R. Haskins provided indemnity coverage for the injury to James D. Jones on April 22, 1990, rather than the farm insurance policy issued to Haskins by Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company?
B. Did the District Court err by failing to determine whether it was appropriate to apportion liability for indemnity between both Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company and Center Mutual Insurance Company?
C. Did the District Court err in determining that Center Mutual Insurance Company was obligated to pay the "guarantee" made by Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance to the United States for medical services provided to James D. Jones under the federal Medical Care Recovery Act?
D. Did the District Court err in awarding interest to Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the District Court correctly determine that the personal auto insurance policy issued by Center Mutual Insurance Company to Steven R. Haskins provided indemnity coverage for the injury to James D. Jones on April 22, 1990.
II. Did the District Court correctly determine that the farm insurance policy issued by Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company to Steven R. Haskins did not provide or specifically excluded coverage for the injury to James D. Jones on April 22, 1990.
III. Did the District Court correctly determine that Center Mutual Insurance Company is obligated to reimburse Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company for the $17,684 Grinnell guarantied to pay to the United States Government.
IV. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in awarding interest to Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company in the manner provided for in the Judgment.

Add Docket 20020073 RSS Add Docket 20020073 RSS

Docket entries:
103/18/2002 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/15/2002
204/15/2002 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Vols.)
304/22/2002 APPELLANT BRIEF
404/22/2002 APPELLANT APPENDIX
504/22/2002 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
604/26/2002 Corrected Table of Authorities & page 11 for ATB
704/26/2002 DISK - ATB (E-mailed)
805/17/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF
905/17/2002 APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
1005/17/2002 DISK - AEB
1108/27/2002 SITTING WITH THE COURT: O'Keefe, James H.
1209/05/2002 APPEARANCES: Lawrence R. Klemin; Lawrence A. Dopson
1309/05/2002 ARGUED: Klemin; Dopson (Vol. Y; Page 19)
1409/05/2002 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1503/26/2003 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
1603/26/2003 SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
1703/26/2003 (CONCUR IN PART AND DISSENT IN PART): Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/DIS
1803/26/2003 At the direction of the Court no costs will be taxed on this appeal.
1903/27/2003 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2004/17/2003 MANDATE
2104/22/2003 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2207/11/2008 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/29/2014