S-24-0628 and S-24-0630 US Specialty Insurance Company (Appellee) v. D.S. Avionics Unlimited, LLC (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Shelly R. Stratman
Attorneys: Amy M. Locher (Locher Pavelka Dostal Braddy & Hammes, LLC for Appellant) and Earl G. Greene, III (Gordon & Rees, LLP for Appellee)
Civil: Insurance coverage and summary judgment
Proceedings Below: Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment that sought a finding from the trial court that there was not insurance to cover the loss of Appellant’s aircraft. Appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court determined that the aircraft’s damage was due to corrosion and rot over time, and it granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee and denied Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred by finding USSIC acted in good faith because it had a reasonable basis for the denial when it was obliged to assess coverage; 2) The district court erred by finding no “accident” occurred during the policy period; 3) The district court erred to the extent it required DSA to prove the loss was caused by a specific peril; 4) The district court erred by finding that DSA failed to prove a tortious conversion by Edquist, which, under the terms of the policy, constitutes an accident; 5) The district court erred and invaded the province of the jury by finding Edquist lacked criminal intent needed to establish a theft; 6) The district court erred by finding O’Daniel’s alleged negligence constitutes a conversion which bars coverage under the policy’s entrustment exclusion; 7) The district court erred by finding DSA failed to show damages proximately resulting from the direct physical loss of its aircraft; 8) The district court erred by granting USSIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and 9) The district court erred by denying DSA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.