Advertisements

Just because you have a piece of paper saying you are an additional insured, it does not mean there is any coverage under any policy to protect you.

Additional insured certificates are limited by two things, what the underlying policy provides coverage for and what the certificate of insurance says it will cover. Lacking  coverage under the policy or lacking the necessary language in the additional insured certificate you are hanging in the wind without any insurance coverage.

For an additional insured certificate to be valid, you must put together three things. A contract which identifies the requirements or insurance you are looking for. An insurance policy that insures those requirements and a certificate of insurance that covers those requirements or better states as the requirements are set forth in the original contract. Lacking any, one of those and you are just wasting paper.

When you get a certificate of insurance, you must then read it to make sure you meet the requirements it may set out. If there is a limitation on the amount of time you have to file a claim or a specific way to notify the insured, make sure you follow those procedures. 

Finally, whenever you file any claim with any insurance company for coverage, follow the procedures the policy requires then follow up with a letter providing notice the insurance company in writing.

Great American Alliance Insurance Company, v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103148

State: Missouri, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division 

Plaintiff: Great American Alliance Insurance Company 

Defendant: Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., et al. 

Plaintiff Claims: Great American now moves for summary judgment on its requested declaratory judgment that: (1) no liability coverage exists under its policy issued to Student Life for any claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit against Windermere or Windermere’s employees, including Kendra Brown; (2) Great American owes no duty to defend Windermere, Kendra Brown, or any other Windermere employees in the underlying lawsuit; and
(3) no medical payments coverage exists for Karlee Richards. 

Defendant Defenses:   No coverage provided under the policy or certificate of insurance

Holding: Split decision, however the insurance company will not pay anything under the certificate of insurance 

Year: 2017 

This is a legally complicated case with simple facts. A church rented a camp from Student Life, which had contracted with a church camp called Windermere. The reservation form and simple agreement between the camp and the church required the issuance of a certificate of insurance. 

A camper, part of the church group fell while riding the zip line. She sued. That lawsuit was still pending when this lawsuit was started to determine whose insurance was required to defend against the camper’s lawsuit. 

In that case, damages are being sought against them for injuries sustained by Karlee Richards after she fell while zip-lining at The Edge, a ropes course at Windermere’s Conference Center. Kendra Brown was an employee of Windermere, working at the Edge at the time of  the accident.

 The injured camper Richards was with the Searcy Baptist Church. They rented the camp through Student Life. Student Life rented the camp from Windermere. The contract between Student Life and Windermere is the one at question here. Windermere required a certificate of insurance from Student Life. 

June 2014, Karlee Richards and her Searcy Baptist Church youth group were attending a summer camp at Windermere’s Conference Center, which was sponsored by Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Conference, d.b.a. Student Life. Student Life contracted with Windermere to hold the church camp at Windermere’s facility in Missouri. Student Life had a liability policy with Great American, and Windermere was an additional insured on that policy. The additional insured endorsement provides that the additional insured, in this case Windermere, is only covered for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that portion of the premises leased to Great American contends that Windermere is not entitled to coverage for Kaylee Richards’s injuries because Windermere did not “lease” the Edge to Student Life because the Edge was not specifically mentioned in Student Life’s written agreement with Windermere.

 The first issue the court skipped was the policy that Student Life had, was restrictive and had minimal coverage. It had a requirement that all claims had to be made in one year. This may not be bad, but if the statute of limitations for the type of injury is two years or three, you may not have coverage for a claim because you did not know you had one until after the time period had run. 

Student Life is the named insured on a Commercial General Liability policy with Great American. The policy requires that all requests for medical payments be made within one year of the accident that gives rise to the insurance claim. Also, when there is other valid and collectible excess insurance coverage, the Great American policy provides that Great American will have no duty to defend its insured against a claim for damages.

 On top of the claim limitation period, the coverage was solely excess coverage. Meaning the coverage did on top of any other coverage the insured had and had no duty to defend or pay for attorneys. It only had to pay for a claim after the
limits of the underlying policy were exhausted. No underlying policy was ever mentioned in the case so it is unknown if one existed.

If this is the only policy, Student Life purchased, they bought the wrong one! 

Another issue was whether the student life policy would provide coverage for employees of Windermere that were sued based on the accident. 

This suit was brought by the Student Life insurance company, Great American Alliance Insurance Company, asking the court to tell Student Life it was not going to pay or defend any of the claims brought by the injured camper against Windermere. 

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

 The court first looked at whether the additional insured certificate was ambiguous. If so, then the court had to interpret the ambiguity under Missouri’s law.

An ambiguity is an uncertainty in the meaning of the policy.

  If an ambiguity exists, the policy language will be construed against the insurer. Mendota, “‘An ambiguity exists when there is
duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language of the policy.'” “‘To test whether the language used in the policy is ambiguous, the language is considered in the light in which it would normally be understood by the lay person who bought and paid for the policy.'” Whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law.” 

The burden of proving there is coverage falls on the party seeking it, in this case, Windermere. An ambiguity exists if there are different interpretations of the language in the policy. There are two types of Ambiguities, Latent and patent. 

A policy is ambiguous if it is “fairly open to different interpretations” because it contains “duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty of meaning.” Importantly, there are two types of ambiguities in the law: patent and latent. “A patent ambiguity is detected from the face of the document, whereas a latent ambiguity is found ‘when the particular words of a document apply equally well to two different objects or some external circumstances make their meaning uncertain.'” 

Here the court found that a patent ambiguity existed. 

For these reasons, a patent ambiguity exists. The disputed phrase not only should be interpreted in favor of the Defendants, but the Defendants’ interpretation is arguably the only one that would make sense to an ordinary person under these circumstances. 

The court also found a latent ambiguity existed in the certificate of insurance. 

A latent ambiguity exists when a contract “on its face appears clear and unambiguous, but some collateral matter makes the meaning
uncertain.” Id. In other words, an ambiguity is “latent if language, which is plain on its face, becomes uncertain upon application.”

 If an ambiguity is found in an insurance policy, the ambiguity is construed against the insurance company. “In the
alternative, it is well-settled that an ambiguity within an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer
.”

Consequently, the court ruled on this issue, that there was coverage for Windermere from the Student Life Policy. However, the court found against Student Life and Windermere on the other issues.

Windermere requested coverage for defending its employees, which the court denied. 

Great American argues that no coverage exists for Brown or any other Windermere employee because the Additional Insured Endorsement does not provide additional insured status and/or coverage for an additional insured’s employees. Brown is not identified anywhere in Student Life’s Great American policy nor is she listed as an Additional Insured on a Certificate of Liability. Therefore, any coverage for Brown would necessarily derive from her status as Windermere’s employee, and employees are not covered as insureds by the Additional Insured Endorsement. 

The court agreed with Great American that no coverage was described in the certificate of insurance. 

The next issue was, whether or not there was a duty to defend. A duty to defend is to pay the cost of the lawsuit; attorney fees, expert witness fees, etc. 

Under Missouri law, the duty to defend “arises whenever there is a potential or possible liability to pay based on the facts at the outset of the case and is not dependent on the probable liability to pay based on the facts ascertained through trial.” 

Because there was no coverage for the Windermere employees, there was no duty to defend them either. A duty to defend must be specifically identified in the policy. In this case the policy specifically stated, there was no duty to defend. 

As to whether Great American owes a duty to defend Windermere, the Endorsement makes clear that any coverage for Windermere as an additional insured would be excess, and the policy does not afford a defense when (1) its coverage is excess and (2) when the insured is being provided a defense by another carrier. 

The last issue was whether medical expenses of the injured camper were owed by Great American to Windermere. Again, since the policy specifically stated there was no coverage for medical expenses this was denied. The court also found the
requirement under the policy to make a claim for medical expenses had to be done within one year, and that time had lapsed; therefore, no medical expenses were owed by the Student Life Policy with Great American. 

The decision was split, however, in reality; Windermere got nothing from the decision. If Windermere lost its suit or exhausted its own liability insurance policy protection, it could, then see money from the Student Life policy with Great American, but no other coverage was owed by Great American. However, that meant the camper was going to have to win millions probably to exhaust the Windermere policy and Windermere or its insurance company was going to foot the bill with no help from the policy under the certificate of insurance. 

So Now What? 

This is a classic case were not knowing or checking what happens when you receive an additional insured certificate ends up costing you more money than not having one. 

The underlying policy by the group coming into the camp was crap. On top of that it had major restrictions on when it would pay. Add to those issues the certificate of insurance was badly written and the company receiving the additional insured certificate received a worthless piece of paper. On top of that it cost them a lot of money I’m guessing to sue to find out they were not going to get anything from the policy.

 1.       Issue a request for a Certificate of Insurance in a contract or the contract. Set forth in the contract everything you must have and the type of insurance policy that must be underlying the certificate of insurance.

2.      Request a copy of the insurance policy be delivered with the certificate of insurance. Again, if the policy is crap, you are getting crap. 

3.      Make sure the insurance policy covers what the contract says it should cover. 

4.      Make sure the certificate of insurance covers what the contract says it must cover. 

Just collecting certificates of insurance to put in a box or file cabinet are only killing trees. It is probably not providing you any protection as in this case.

 What do you think? Leave a comment.

 To Comment Click on the Heading and go to the bottom of the page. 

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529 

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

 clip_image002 clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

 If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law  To Purchase Go Here:

 Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com 

By Recreation Law  Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H. Moss

 #AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer,

 

 

 

Advertisements

Great American Alliance Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103148

Great American Alliance Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103148

Great American Alliance Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., et al., Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-04046-NKL

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103148

July 5, 2017, Decided

July 5, 2017, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: Great Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Windermere Baptist Conf. Ctr., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92701 (W.D. Mo., July 18, 2016)

COUNSEL: [*1] For Great American Alliance Insurance Company, Plaintiff: John S. Sandberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kenneth R. Goleaner, Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, PC-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.

For Windermere Baptist Conference Center, Inc., Defendant: Amber Joy Simon, Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Lisa A. Weixelman, Polsinelli PC – KCMO, Kansas City, MO.

For Kendra Brown, Defendant: Christopher P. Rackers, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kaci R Peterson, Schreimann, Rackers & Francka, LLC, Jefferson City, MO.

For Jeremy Richards, Karlee Richards, Defendants: Patrick M. Martucci, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson, Vorhees & Martucci – Joplin, Joplin, MO.

JUDGES: NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: NANETTE K. LAUGHREY

OPINION

ORDER

This case principally concerns whether Defendants, Windermere Baptist Conference Center and Kendra Brown, have insurance coverage under a Great American policy for potential liability in a suit pending in Morgan County. In that case, damages are being sought against them for injuries sustained by Karlee Richards after she fell while zip-lining at The Edge, a ropes course at Windermere’s Conference Center. Kendra Brown was an employee of Windermere, working at the Edge at the time of the accident.

In [*2] June 2014, Karlee Richards and her Searcy Baptist Church youth group were attending a summer camp at Windermere’s Conference Center, which was sponsored by Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Conference, d.b.a. Student Life.1 Student Life contracted with Windermere to hold the church camp at Windermere’s facility in Missouri. Student Life had a liability policy with Great American, and Windermere was an additional insured on that policy. The additional insured endorsement provides that the additional insured, in this case Windermere, is only covered for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that portion of the premises leased to [Student Life] [by Windemere].” [Doc. 35-17, p.1 (“Endorsement”)]. Great American contends that Windermere is not entitled to coverage for Kaylee Richards’s injuries because Windermere did not “lease” the Edge to Student Life because the Edge was not specifically mentioned in Student Life’s written agreement with Windermere.

1 Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention does business as Student Life. The Court refers to Lifeway and Student Life interchangeably throughout the remainder of this Order as simply, “Student Life.”

Pending before the Court is Great American’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 34]. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Undisputed Facts2

2 Unless otherwise noted, the facts recited are those which are properly supported and undisputed.

A. The Student Life [*3] Camp at Windermere

Windermere Baptist Conference Center is a large Conference Center on the Lake of the Ozarks with over 300 acres and 126 buildings, including group lodging, a dining hall, conference space, cabins, a chapel, and a gift shop. Windermere also offers various recreational facilities and activities at its campus, including the Edge. Organizations like Student Life use Windermere’s facilities for summer church camps.

Student Life had been conducting camps at Windermere for about ten years prior to its June 2014 camp. In January 2014, Student Life and Windermere executed an Amended Conference Contract. The “Amended Conference Contract,” provides:

Amended Conference Contract

. . .

EVENT INFORMATION

Event Name: Student Life #1 ’14 (June 2-6, 2014)

Expected #: 1000

Arrive Date: Saturday, May 31, 2014

(Check in begins at 3:00 PM. Rooms may not be available until 6:00 PM. . .)

Depart Date: Saturday, June 7, 2014

Lodging Check out time is 11:00 AM. Keys must be turned in by this time. . .)

LODGING INFORMATION

Lodging Type Start End Nights Units Cost Total
Per Person (Student Life Extra) 5/31/14 6/2/14 2 25 $17.50 $825.00
Per Person (Student Life Extra) 6/1/14 6/2/14 1 15 $17.50 $262.50
Per Person (Student Life [*4] ’14) 6/2/14 6/5/14 4 1,000 $70.00 $70,000
Minimum
Total for Lodging: $71,137.50 $56,910.00

You will need to provide Windermere a rooming list (names of individuals occupying each room) and a copy of your conference or retreat schedule at the time of check-in.

. . .

MEAL INFORMATION

Minimum
Total for Meals: $76,570.00 $61,733.00

. . .

All guests eating in the dining hall must have a meal ticket or wrist band to be

admitted into the Dining Hall.

. . .

CONFERENCE SPACE INFORMATION

Facility/Room Start End Cost
Wilderness Creek Auditorium (1500) 6/1/14 8:00am 6/6/14 12:00pm
Deer Ridge Conf Rm 1 (30) 6/2/14 3:00pm 6/6/14 12:00pm
Total for Conference Space: $0.00

. . .

Use of conference space and facilities begins at the start time stated in the contract. Conference or facility space usage time ends at the time stated in the contract and must be empty of all guests and guest items.

. . .

ENTITY OBLIGATION

Estimated Total Payment $147,707.50
Total Minimum Payment $118,643.00
Property Damage/Abuse

The above named group will have financial responsibility for any damages and excessive wear and tear it incurs to the Windermere grounds, facilities or property to the extent that such damage or excessive wear and tear arises [*5] from the negligence or willful misconduct of the above named group. Cleanup of any facilities or grounds that are excessively dirty will be the financial responsibility of the group.

[Doc. 35-5 (“Amended Conference Contract”)].

The parties’ Amended Conference Contract does not identify every building or activity that was available to campers during Student Life’s camp at Windermere. For example, the chapel, which is made available to any group attending a camp at Windermere, is not listed. In addition, the dining hall is not specifically listed under the “Conference Space Information” heading, despite the Amended Conference Contract listing a price for meals Windermere is to provide.

In addition, it is undisputed that Windermere offered various free recreational activities to its guest campers, including those who attended the Student Life camp. Windermere also offered some special recreational activities that required an additional fee and reservations. The Edge was one such activity. The Edge, a ropes and zip-lining course, is not accessible to campers at Windermere without special scheduling, the purchase of tickets, and the execution of a “Recreational Release” form. Student Life [*6] advertised Windermere’s recreational facilities, including “The Edge,” as available for use to its campers, and it was Student Life’s expectation that these facilities would be available.

In addition to the Amended Conference Contract, Student Life also completed a Facilities Request Form, and Windermere completed a Fax Back Response Sheet. [Docs. 40-3 and 40-4]. The Fax Back Response Sheet provides:

Student Life Camp

Windermere Conference Center

Recreation:

. . .

What are some free-time options on your campus?

o Sand Volleyball, Outdoor Basketball, Tennis, Mini Golf, Disc Golf, Pool, Hiking, The Edge (low/high ropes course), Paintball, Waterfront Activities (Inflatable water park, kayak, canoe, paddle boats, fishing, etc) (See attached PDF on available Recreation Packages).

[Doc. 40-4, p. 3].

B. Great American Insurance Policy

Student Life is the named insured on a Commercial General Liability policy with Great American. The policy requires that all requests for medical payments be made within one year of the accident that gives rise to the insurance claim. [Doc. 42-2, p. 62 of 166]. Also, when there is other valid and collectible excess insurance coverage, the Great American policy provides [*7] that Great American will have no duty to defend its insured against a claim for damages. [Doc. 42-2, p. 67-68 of 166].

Because Student Life was contracting with Windermere for its event, Windermere was named as an additional insured on Student Life’s Great American policy. The Certificate of Liability Insurance was issued by Great American on May 8, 2014, and Windermere accepted. The Certificate referenced Great American’s policy issued to Student Life, Policy No.: GLP 0310189 and stated:

Event: Student Life Event Dates: May 31-June 7 and June 14-20, 2014 Windermere Conference Center is included as Additional Insured on the General Liability policy, as per endorsement #CG 82 24, ed. 12/01, and on the Automobile Liability policy, as per endorsement #CA 8518, ed. 6/09.

[Doc. 35-7 (“Certificate of Liability Insurance”)].

C. The Underlying Lawsuit

The Searcy Baptist Church youth group was one of the groups of campers that attended Student Life’s camp at Windermere in June of 2014. Karlee Richards and the rest of the Searcy youth group were scheduled to ride The Edge on June 4, 2014. They paid Windermere an additional fee for this activity. While zip-lining at The Edge that day, Richards fell [*8] and was injured. Kendra Brown, a Windermere employee, was working at the Edge at the time of the accident.

Following Karlee Richards’s accident at The Edge, her father, Jeremy Richards, both individually and as Next Friend, brought suit against Windermere and several of Windermere’s employees, including Kendra Brown. This lawsuit is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Missouri and seeks damages for Karlee Richards’s physical injuries sustained at The Edge.

On November 17, 2015, Windermere and Kendra Brown tendered claims to Great American for defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit, seeking coverage as additional insureds under Student Life’s Great American policy. [Doc. 35-15 (“Demand Letter”)]. The letter also demanded Medical Payments coverage for Karlee Richards’s medical expenses. The demand for Medical Payments coverage was made more than one year after Richards’s June 4, 2014 accident at The Edge. [Docs. 35-15 (“Demand Letter”) and 35-18 (“Feb. 4, 2016 Denial Letter”)].

Great American responded to the parties’ demand letter with a request for additional information, including information regarding Windermere’s coverage through Church Mutual Insurance [*9] Company. Windermere’s insurer, Church Mutual, was defending Windermere in the underlying lawsuit. [Doc. 35-14, p. 1 of 7 (“Dec. 17, 2015 Letter”)]. In subsequent correspondence with Great American, Windermere also stated, “Church Mutual, the insurer for ‘Windermere’ has tendered its full two million dollars in liability insurance.” [Doc. 35-14, p. 1 of 7 (“Dec. 17, 2015 Letter”)].

In its February 4, 2016 denial letter to Windermere and Brown, Great American concluded that Richards’s accident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises Windermere leased to Student Life and denied Windermere’s tender. Great American’s letter also provided that:

[E]ven if indemnity coverage did exist for Windermere and Kendra Brown under the Lifeway Policy, it is also clear that that [sic] Great American owes no defense obligation of the pending lawsuit. Your December 17, 2015 correspondence renewing the tender of defense on behalf of both Windermere and Kendra Brown makes clear that Windermere is being afforded a defense by Church Mutual and that Kendra Brown is being defended by both Church Mutual and Shelter. . . . [T]he Social Service Agency General Liability Broadening Endorsement [*10] makes clear that any coverage that did exist would be excess over all other insurance, including both the Church Mutual and Shelter policies. The “Other Insurance” provision of the Lifeway Policy makes clear that, where its coverage is excess and a defense is being provided by another carrier, Great American owes no duty to defend. Hence, Windermere’s and Kendra Brown’s tender of the defense of the pending lawsuit is denied for this additional reason.

[Doc. 35-18, p. 6 (“Feb. 4, 2016 Denial Letter”)]. Great American also denied Brown’s tender, stating that she was not an additional insured on the policy. Id.

II. Discussion

Windermere seeks coverage in the underlying Morgan County lawsuit as an additional insured under the Great American policy issued to Student Life. After denying Windermere’s tender, Great American filed suit before this Court seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its obligations under the policy. Great American now moves for summary judgment on its requested declaratory judgment that: (1) no liability coverage exists under its policy issued to Student Life for any claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit against Windermere or Windermere’s employees, including Kendra [*11] Brown; (2) Great American owes no duty to defend Windermere, Kendra Brown, or any other Windermere employees in the underlying lawsuit; and (3) no medical payments coverage exists for Karlee Richards.

A movant is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The rule requires summary judgment to be entered “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).

A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state where the court sits, in this case, Missouri. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); American Guarantee Liability Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 668 F.3d 991, 996 (8th Cir.2012). But a court need not undertake a choice-of-law inquiry unless an actual conflict of law is demonstrated. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kamrath, 475 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). Because the parties do not raise any actual conflict and because they do not dispute that Missouri law applies, the Court applies Missouri law.3

3 Plaintiff Great American contends no choice of law analysis is necessary because the outcome is the same under the law of the three states that could potentially apply: Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama. Because Defendants Windermere, Brown, and the Richards contend Missouri law should apply, the Court concludes that the parties agree to the application of Missouri law.

A. Interpretation of Insurance Policies in Missouri

The interpretation [*12] of an insurance policy is a question of law to be determined by the Court. Mendota Ins. Co. v. Lawson, 456 S.W.3d 898, 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). The ultimate goal of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of the parties. Bolinger v. Clarks Mut. Ins. Co., 485 S.W.3d 803, 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). To determine the intent of the parties, the language in the contract is to be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Mendota, 456 S.W.3d at 903.

In interpreting an insurance policy, “[t]he key is whether the contract language is ambiguous or unambiguous.” Todd v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Mo. banc 2007). If an ambiguity exists, the policy language will be construed against the insurer. Mendota, 456 S.W.3d at 904. “‘An ambiguity exists when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language of the policy.'” Fanning v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 412 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129, 132 (Mo. banc 2007)). “‘To test whether the language used in the policy is ambiguous, the language is considered in the light in which it would normally be understood by the lay person who bought and paid for the policy.'” Blumer v. Automobile Club Inter–Ins, 340 S.W.3d 214, 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Heringer v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 140 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)). “Whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law.” Todd, 223 S.W.3d at 160.

“[T]he parties seeking to establish coverage under the insurance policy have the burden of proving that the claim is within the coverage afforded by the policy . . . even though they are denominated as defendants in a declaratory judgment action.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. D.T.S., 867 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

B. Liability Coverage [*13] for Windermere as Additional Insured

The Great American policy’s declarations page lists Student Life as the named insured. Windermere is listed as an additional Insured as follows:

5. AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INSURED(S)

a. Additional Insured — Manager or Lessor of Premises

(1) This policy is amended to include as an insured any person or organization (hereinafter called Additional Insured) from whom you lease or rent property and which requires you to add such person or organization as an Additional Insured

***

(2) With respect to the insurance afforded the Additional Insured identified in Paragraph A.(1) of this endorsement, the following additional provisions apply:

(a) This insurance applies only to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that portion of the premises leased to [Student Life].

[Doc. 35-17, p. 1 (“Endorsement”)]

Great American contends that the reference in Section 5.a.(2)(a) to “premises leased to you” refers to the specific places identified in the Amended Conference Contract between Windermere and Student Life. According to Great American, because the Edge is not listed, Windermere’s potential liability for the accident at the Edge is not covered. In contrast, Windermere [*14] argues that “premises lease” includes all the places on its property that Student Life campers were authorized to access, including the Edge.

1. Interpretation of Section 5.a.(2)(a)4

4 Defendants Brown and the Richards argue that the limitation of liability in Section 5.a.(2)(a) does not apply to Windermere because that section refers to Paragraph A.(1), and Windermere is identified as an Additional Insured by Paragraph a.(1). In other words, these Defendants reason that the parties must be referring to something other than the preceding paragraph a.(1) because capital A.(1) rather than lower case a.(1) was used. Defendants further reason that the only “Paragraph A.(1)” in the endorsement is located in Section 7A.(1) which limits liability to $300,000 for personal property and building damage rented to an additional insured. The Court rejects this argument because the reference to “A” instead of “a” is clearly a minor typographical error, and the Defendants’ strained interpretation of Section 7 in this context makes no sense. In Mendota Insurance Company v. Ware, 348 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011), the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected a similar argument based on a typographical error because the “policy’s intended meaning, would be apparent to an ordinary reader.” Id. at 73. In the context of the Great American policy, it would not be reasonable for an ordinary reader to think that the use of A.(1), immediately after a section labeled a.(1), would be referring to 7A.(1) when 7A.(1) has nothing to do with identifying an additional insured and is not located in close proximity to the paragraph that does deal with the additional insured.

Whether an insurance provision is ambiguous is a question of law for the Court. General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Barrett, 847 S.W.2d 125, 131 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). A policy is ambiguous if it is “fairly open to different interpretations” because it contains “duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty of meaning.” Id. Importantly, there are two types of ambiguities in the law: patent and latent. Cent. United Life Ins. Co. v. Huff, 358 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “A patent ambiguity is detected from the face of the document, whereas a latent ambiguity is found ‘when the particular words of a document apply equally well to two different objects or some external circumstances make their meaning uncertain.'” Id. (quoting Jake C. Byers, Inc. v. J.B.C. Invs., 834 S.W.2d 806, 816 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)).

a. Patent Ambiguity

The key phrase that this Court must interpret and apply is “portion of the premises leased to [Student Life].” “The words of a policy must be given their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the reasonable expectation and objectives of the parties, unless it is obvious that a technical meaning was intended.” Bolinger v. Clarks Mut. Ins. Co., 485 S.W.3d 803, 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). (internal quotation marks removed). Counsel for Great American argues that the term “lease” is understood by everyone [*15] to be a premise over which one has exclusive or near exclusive control. [Oral Argument Transcript, p. 3]. Therefore, the word “lease” would only cover the property over which Student Life had exclusive control by the terms of the Amended Conference Contract. In contrast, Windermere effectively argues that all of the documents surrounding the formation of the insurance policy demonstrate that an ordinary person would not intend the technical meaning of the term “lease,” i.e. exclusive possession, but instead, would expect it to cover all of the Windermere property to which Student Life campers had authorized access.

Under Missouri law, a lease gives exclusive5 use of property for a determined period of time to the lessee. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. v. C.F. Murphy & Associates, Inc., 656 S.W.2d 766, 777 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). The term “lease” gives rise to a landlord-tenant relationship, whereby the tenant has “exclusive possession of the premises as against all the world,” including the landlord. Santa Fe Trail Neighborhood Redevelopment Corp. v. W.F. Coen & Co., 154 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations removed). In contrast, “[a] license is only a privilege to enter certain premises for a specific purpose. Kimack v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). The difference between a lease and a license is technical and difficult to determine. Santa Fe, 154 S.W.3d at 439.

5 Great American did not cite to a case that says “near exclusive” possession is enough, and the Court has found no such statement in Missouri law.

When there is a conflict between the technical definition [*16] of a term in a policy and what a reasonable person would understand, the lay definition controls unless it is obvious that a technical definition was intended. Mansion Hills Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 62 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “To determine the [lay definition] of a term, courts will consult standard English language dictionaries.” Id. Merriam Webster’s New College Dictionary defines “leased” as “property occupied or used under the terms of a lease.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995). “Lease” is defined as “a contract granting occupation or use of property during a certain period in exchange for a specified rent.” Id. “Premises” is defined as “land and the buildings on it.” Id. Those definitions do not indicate possession is exclusive.

In this context, did the parties intend the phrase “premises leased to you” to have a technical meaning–i.e. the formation of a landlord-tenant relationship between Windermere and Student Life whereby Student Life would have exclusive control over the property listed in the Amended Conference Contract, even as to Windermere? The Certificate of Insurance6 suggests otherwise. [Doc. 35-7]. It states:

Event: Student Life Event Dates: May 31-June 7 and June 14-20, 2014 Windermere Conference Center is included as [*17] Additional Insured on the General Liability policy, as per endorsement #CG 82 24, ed. 12/01, and on the Automobile Liability policy, as per endorsement #CA 8518, ed. 6/09.

This language does not suggest that the parties intended a landlord-tenant relationship being created between Student Life and Windermere. Rather, it suggests that Great American knew it was providing liability insurance to Windermere for an event — the camp — being held by Student Life on the Windermere campus. At a minimum, there is a conflict between the technical meaning of the word lease and what an ordinary person would understand under these circumstances, taking into account the dictionary definitions. In those circumstances, the technical definition does not control. See Mansion Hills Condo. Ass’n v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 62 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

6 Because the Certificate of Liability was issued to Windermere for the purpose of adding Windermere as an additional insured, “as per endorsement #CG 82 24 ed. 12/01,” the Certificate arguably became a part of the insurance contract. See Corder v. Morgan Roofing Co., 355 Mo. 127, 195 S.W.2d 441 (Mo. 1946) (finding certificate of insurance that doubled liability coverage, added insurance for property damage, and certified complete coverage of all operations in connection with the insured’s construction contract was part of the insurance contract); see also, Section 1.5.a.(1) of this endorsement:

This policy is amended to include as an insured any person or organization (hereinafter called Additional Insured) from whom you lease or rent property and which requires you to add such person or organization as an Additional Insured on this policy.

Further, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Johnson, 592 S.W.2d 854, 857-8 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979), says that a court may consider the circumstances under which the contract was made. These circumstances, as discussed below in the section on latent ambiguity, also support [*18] a finding that an ordinary person would expect to be covered for camp activities, not just for dorm rooms and conference space.

For these reasons, a patent ambiguity exists. The disputed phrase not only should be interpreted in favor of the Defendants, but the Defendants’ interpretation is arguably the only one that would make sense to an ordinary person under these circumstances.

b. Latent Ambiguity

Even if there were no patent ambiguity, the Court can look at extrinsic evidence to determine if there is a latent ambiguity.7 Royal Banks of Mo. v. Fridkin, 819 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo. banc 1991) (“A latent ambiguity . . . must be developed by extrinsic evidence.”).

7 Although Defendants do not use the term latent ambiguity, this appears to be the crux of Defendants’ argument: that even if the “premises leased” term is not ambiguous on its face, it is ambiguous when applied to the facts at hand.

A latent ambiguity exists when a contract “on its face appears clear and unambiguous, but some collateral matter makes the meaning uncertain.” Id. In other words, an ambiguity is “latent if language, which is plain on its face, becomes uncertain upon application.” Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Barrett, 847 S.W.2d 125, 131 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). For example, “[a] latent ambiguity may be one in which the description of the property is clear upon the face of the instrument, but it turns out that there is more than one estate to which the description applies; or it may be one where the property is imperfectly or in some respects erroneously described, so as not to refer with precision [*19] to any particular object.” Muilenburg, Inc. v. Cherokee Rose Design & Build, LLC, 250 S.W.3d 848, 854-55 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Prestigiacamo v. Am. Equitable Assur. Co. of N.Y., 240 Mo. App. 839, 221 S.W.2d 217, 221 (1949) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The case of Royal Banks of Mo. v. Fridkin, 819 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo. banc 1991) provides another example. In Royal Banks, the Missouri Supreme Court found a latent ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous contract where the contract described a $10,000.00 promissory note but where no $10,000.00 promissory note actually existed. Id. Looking to extrinsic evidence, the court concluded, “Evidence of a promissory note that fits the description in the guaranty in all respects except for principal amount, coupled with the fact that a $10,000.00 note did not exist, is a collateral matter that renders the meaning of the guaranty uncertain. Once it became apparent that there was no $10,000.00 note but instead only a $50,000.00 note, a latent ambiguity existed.” Id.

Although parol evidence may not ordinarily be considered to create an ambiguity, the Court may consider such evidence to demonstrate the existence of collateral matters that create a latent ambiguity. Royal Banks of Mo. v. Fridkin, 819 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo. banc. 1991) (“A latent ambiguity is not apparent on the face of the writing and therefore, must be developed by extrinsic evidence.”). Therefore, the Court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine if a latent ambiguity exists. In this case, [*20] in the absence of a definition of “premises leased,” the surrounding facts suggest a latent ambiguity about what was intended by this term.

The plain language of the Amended Conference Contract alludes to Student Life’s use of and access to many more properties than merely conference space and lodging units during its event. For example, the Contract’s plain language contemplates Student Life’s use of a dining hall8 because the meals they contracted for were to be served there. Yet, the Contract does not specifically list the dining hall. Likewise, the Contract does not mention the chapel, despite Windermere’s title as Windermere Baptist Conference Center and its practice of contracting with church groups to conduct summer church camps. At a minimum, a jury could find the parties intended that campers would have access to the chapel, even though it was not listed. Finally, the Contract, like the Certificate of Insurance, refers to an “Event,” and Great American’s interpretation of the Contract considers only part of what was going to occur at that event.

8 The Contract’s “Meal Information” section provides start and end times for specific meals and alludes to Student Life’s use of the Dining Hall, stating, “All guests eating in the dining hall must have a meal ticket or wrist band to be admitted into the Dining Hall.” [Doc. 35-5, p. 2].

The Court also considers the parties’ Fax Back Response Sheet. [Doc. 40-4]. This document confirms that the purpose of the parties’ [*21] agreement was to host an event, referred to by the Sheet as “Student Life Camp.” [Doc. 40-4]. In addition, the Sheet shows the parties’ understanding that Student Life’s campers would have access to not only conference and dorm space, but also a church for worship, recreational fields, a gymnasium, hiking trails, a body of water for “waterfront activities,” and as is relevant in this case, The Edge ropes course:

What are some free-time options on your campus?

o Sand Volleyball, Outdoor Basketball, Tennis, Mini Golf, Disc Golf, Pool, Hiking, The Edge (low/high ropes course), Paintball, Waterfront Activities (Inflatable water park, kayak, canoe, paddle boats, fishing, etc) . . .

See generally [Doc. 40-4 and p. 3 (emphasis added)]. Because Student Life was contracting with Windermere for an event–to host a camp complete with various camp activities and facilities–the Court cannot find that a reasonable insured would have intended the term, “premises leased,” to limit its coverage only to liability arising out of conference rooms and lodging units.

There is no dispute that Student Life camper, Karlee Richards, was authorized to access The Edge at the time of her accident. Based on the Fax [*22] Back Response Sheet, alone, which suggests that Student Life would expect to have access to The Edge during its event, a reasonable juror could conclude that The Edge was a “portion of the premises leased,” which would entitle Windermere to coverage as an additional insured for its liability to Richards. Therefore, summary judgment must be denied.9

9 Although Defendants did not file their own motions for summary judgment, Defendants ask the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1), which provides: “After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant.” [Doc. 53]. Granting summary judgment for the non-movants under this rule is discretionary. Due to the fact that the focus of this briefing has been on Great American’s request for summary judgment, the Court declines to exercise its discretion under this provision. However, the Court will permit Defendants to file their own motions for summary judgment within 20 days of the date of this Order, not inconsistent with this order as to the issues ruled against them.

In the alternative, it is well-settled that an ambiguity within an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer. Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd., 827 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Mo. banc 1992). As already discussed, an ambiguity exists as to what the parties intended “premises leased” to refer to. Therefore, construing this ambiguous term against Great American requires the Court to apply the meaning “which would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if purchasing insurance.” Id. An ordinary insured could reasonably understand this phrase to refer to the areas to which Student Life had access during its event at Windermere. Therefore, Great American’s Motion for Summary Judgement must be denied on this issue.

Great American’s cited authorities do not require a different outcome. First, the coverage disputes in many of Great American’s authorities center on how to interpret “arising out of,” [*23] without any dispute as to what properties the parties understood to be the “leased premises” covered by the additional insured endorsement at issue. In contrast to the facts before this Court, each of these cases involved an undisputed lease contract between a landlord and tenant, rather than an event contract between two organizations, and there was no dispute or ambiguity surrounding what property was meant by the “premises leased” or a similar term. See, e.g., Belz Park Place v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2015 WL 11145058 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 23, 2015) (within context of landlord-tenant relationship, involving a lease contract, and no dispute about the leased premises); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 891 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (same); Northbrook Ins. Co. v. American States Ins. Co., 495 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (same); Hilton Hotels Corp v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 629 So.2d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (same); SFH, Inc. v. Millard Refrigerated Svcs., Inc., 339 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2003) (same).

For example, in U.S. Fidelity & Guar. v. Drazic, 877 S.W.2d 140 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). the Missouri Court of Appeals considered additional insured coverage within the context of a landlord-tenant relationship and an unambiguous lease contract. The Drazics leased a portion of their basement to the Brewers, and the Drazics were named as additional insureds under the Brewers’ liability insurance policy. Id. at 141. After the Brewers’ employee fell in a parking lot near the Drazics’ building and injured herself, she filed suit alleging that the Drazics negligently discharged steam from their dry cleaning business, which formed ice on the parking area [*24] causing her fall. Id. at 141-42. The policy’s additional insured endorsement provided coverage to the Drazics as additional insureds “but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises designated below leased to the named insured.” Id. at 142-43 (emphasis added). The court considered the parties’ lease contract, which identified the premises leased as a “designated portion of a commercial building known and numbered as 418 Manchester Road, Ballwin, Missouri 63011, plus the area adjacent to the entrance of Brewer’s Quilt Shop for installation of their office.” Id. at 142. The court reasoned that the endorsement’s “plain language contemplated coverage for the Drazics as additional insureds for liability arising out of incidents taking place in that part of the building leased to the Brewers pursuant to the lease contract” and that there was no coverage because the accident at issue “took place on a parking area outside the building.” Id. at 143.

In contrast to Drazic, the Great American policy does not limit coverage to the “premises designated below” accompanied by a lease that specifically identifies an address or description of the area unambiguously covered by this [*25] clause. Also unlike the facts before this Court, there is no dispute or uncertainty in Drazic about what is meant by the “premises [leased].”

In addition, the Court rejects Great American’s reliance on Drazic for the separate proposition that “the purpose of additional insured endorsements obtained in a landlord-tenant context is to provide landlords protection from vicarious liability due to a tenant‘s action which takes place on the premises that the tenant has leased.” [Doc. 35, p. 16 (quoting Drazic, 877 S.W.2d at 143)]. Despite articulating this theory, the Drazic court did not resolve the coverage question based on vicarious liability: “The injury to Leary occurred due to alleged negligence on the part of the landlords’ business . . . and it did not occur on the premises leased to the [tenants].” Drazic, 877 S.W.2d at 143 (emphasis added). Furthermore, to the extent Great American contends that additional insured coverage is limited to acts for which Windermere is vicariously liable, the Court disagrees. The case from which this theory originated involved an insurance contract materially different from the one at issue here because the policy language in that case specifically limited coverage for additional insureds “against [*26] vicarious liability for the acts of the named insured.” See Hormel Foods Corp. v. Northbrook Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 555, 558-560 (D. Minn. 1996) (quoting Harbor Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 562 F. Supp. 800, 802 (E.D. Pa. 1983) and explaining the origins and inapplicability of this theory). In contrast, coverage under the Great American policy cannot be said to turn on “vicarious liability” because the policy provision does not use this language.

As for other cases cited by Great American, these cases are distinguishable because they involve starkly different contract language than the term, “premises leased,” which this Court has found to be ambiguous. See, e.g., Lancaster v. Ferrell Paving, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (involving different endorsement language: “liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for the [additional] insured”) (emphasis added). Finally, Great American’s reliance on contract cases outside of the insurance context is misplaced because these cases also interpret contract provisions that are unlike the policy language at issue here. See, e.g., Once Upon a Time, LLC v. Chappelle Properties, LLC, 209 So. 3d 1094, 2016 WL 3031347 (Ala. 2016) (applying Alabama law to an indemnity agreement that did not contain the language “arising out of” or “premises leased” and did not involve insurance policy); Union Realty Co., Ltd. v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc., 255 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (interpreting contract language regarding the landlord’s and tenant’s obligations to procure insurance but no interpretation of insurance policy language at [*27] issue); Pilla v. Tom-Boy, Inc., 756 S.W.2d 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (interpreting indemnity provision in a lease that did not contain the language “arising out of” outside of insurance context and no dispute surrounding what constituted the leased premises).

Finally, the Court rejects Great American’s separate argument that whether a tenant has “shared” versus “exclusive” use of an area controls whether that area is part of the “premises leased” covered by an insurance endorsement. For example, in Colony Ins. Co. v. Pinewoods Enterprises, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Mo. 1998), a district court found insurance coverage for liability arising out of an area shared between the additional insured and other parties. In Colony, Bledsoe and Pinewoods entered a leasing contract in which Bledsoe (the lessee) leased portions of Pinewood’s campgrounds for a concert. Id. at 1081. Pinewoods was named as an additional insured under Bledsoe’s general liability policy with Colony Insurance. Id. During the concert, a rain storm caused many of the concert goers to take shelter on and under a deck attached to a lodge at the campground. Id. The lodge’s deck collapsed, injuring numerous concertgoers. Id. At issue was whether Colony Insurance’s coverage of Pinewoods as an additional insured extended to this accident. Id.

The court considered both the insurance [*28] policy endorsement and the parties’ lease contract. The endorsement provided additional insured coverage “but only with respect to liability arising out of your [Bledsoe’s] operations or premises owned by or rented to you.” Id. at 1082. The leasing contract specifically provided that Bledsoe “shall have the exclusive use of the Pinewoods Park” for a specific time period with the exception of the Lodge area. Id. at 1081-82. The contract also provided:

(5) LESSEE [Bledsoe], its customers, guests and invitees will share the Lodge area and facilities, i.e. store, gift shop, bait and tackle area . . . with the fishermen and permanent guests and any campers reserved prior to June 10, 1995.

Id. at 1082. The court concluded that Bledsoe leased the lodge area because the contract “specifically (albeit not exclusively) lease[d] the lodge area to Bledsoe,” and the endorsement provided that coverage extended to “the premises owned by or rented to you.” Id. at 1083 (emphasis added). The court concluded that “Colony’s additional insured endorsement extend[ed] coverage to Pinewoods for any liability arising out of the collapse of the lodge’s deck because the lodge was part of the premises leased to Bledsoe.” Id. In contrast to Great American’s contention that exclusivity [*29] is required, the Colony court still found the lodge premises to be “rented to” Bledsoe for purposes of additional insured coverage, despite the fact that the parties’ lease agreement provided that Bledsoe would “share” the lodge area premises at issue “with the fishermen and permanent guests and any campers.” Id. (emphasis added).

C. Liability Coverage for Kendra Brown or Other Windermere Employees

Great American also moves for summary judgment on the issue of coverage for Kendra Brown, Windermere’s employee. Great American argues that no coverage exists for Brown or any other Windermere employee because the Additional Insured Endorsement does not provide additional insured status and/or coverage for an additional insured’s employees. Brown is not identified anywhere in Student Life’s Great American policy nor is she listed as an Additional Insured on a Certificate of Liability. Therefore, any coverage for Brown would necessarily derive from her status as Windermere’s employee, and employees are not covered as insureds by the Additional Insured Endorsement.

Brown does not dispute that the Additional Insured Endorsement fails to provide coverage for an additional insured’s employees. Instead, [*30] Brown argues that Windermere should be considered a “Named Insured,” which in turn, makes the provisions applicable to “Named Insureds” also applicable to Windermere, including the provision that expands coverage for “Named Insureds” to their employees. The Court rejects this argument as based on an unreasonable interpretation of the policy.

Brown contends that the policy does not define “Named Insured,” and thus, it must be given the meaning that would be attached by an ordinary person. Brown reasons that an ordinary person would define “Named Insured” as a person or entity that is actually named as an insured. In turn, Brown says, because the Certificate of Liability names Windermere as an additional insured, Windermere must be a “Named Insured.” Brown next points to the following provision:

Throughout this Policy the words “you” and “your” refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations, and any other person or organization qualifying as a named insured under this Policy.

The word “insured” means any person or organization qualifying as such under

SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED.

***

[Doc. 42-2, p. 65 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)]. Brown contends that because she has established that Windermere [*31] is a “Named Insured,” “you” and “your” throughout the policy must also refer to Windermere. Next, Brown points to Section II of the policy:

SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED

2. Each of the following is also an Insured:

a. Your . . . “employees,” . . . but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business.

[Doc. 42-2, p. 65 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)]. Brown argues that if the Court accepts her contention as true that Windermere is a “Named Insured,” then “your” refers to Windermere, which means that Brown “is also an Insured” as “[y]our [Windermere’s] ’employee,'” according to Section II.2.a.

Brown’s argument fails because it is based on an unreasonable interpretation that Windermere is somehow a “Named Insured,” a status unsupported by the policy’s clear language.10 First, the policy distinguishes between mere “insureds” and those insureds that are “Named Insureds.” Compare “The word ‘insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as such under SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED” with “Throughout this Policy the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations, and any other person or organization qualifying [*32] as a named insured under this Policy.” [Doc. 42-2, p. 65 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)]. The fact that the policy differentiates between the two statuses shows that they are different terms, despite Brown’s contention that all insureds named are “Named Insureds.”

10 Furthermore, even if the Court accepted Brown’s contention that Windermere, an Additional Insured, was in fact, a Named Insured, Brown still has not shown that she is entitled to coverage under the policy as a Windermere employee because she has not alleged any facts or argument that her liability to Richards arose from “acts within the scope of [her] employment . . . or while performing duties related to the conduct of [Windermere’s] business.” Section II.(2).a.; [Doc. 42-2, p. 65 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)].

Furthermore, the policy’s plain language identifies which insureds are “Named Insureds.” First, the top of the policy’s Declarations page states:

NAMED INSURED LIFEWAY CHRISTIAN RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

[Doc. 42-2, p. 29 of 166]. Therefore, because Student Life is “shown in the Declarations,” it is a “Named Insured.” The policy also includes a Named Insured Endorsement, which amends the Declarations by providing, “It is agreed that the Named Insured shown in the Declarations is amended to read as follows.” [Doc. 42-2, p. 41 of 166]. This statement is followed by a list of various organizations’ names related to Lifeway, which the endorsement provides are also included as Named Insureds. Id. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that these organizations constitute “any other . . . organization qualifying as a named insured under this Policy” and therefore are also “Named Insureds.” [Doc. 42-2, p. 65 of 166 (“CGL [*33] Policy”)]. Based on the policy’s plain language, an ordinary person would understand “Named Insured” to refer to those insureds identified on the Declarations Page next to “NAMED INSURED” and those insureds identified in the Named Insured Endorsement. To interpret the policy to mean that anyone named as an insured, including those named as Additional Insureds, were also entitled to the same expansive level of coverage as the “Named Insureds” would be unreasonable.

In contrast to those entities that are clearly designated as “Named Insureds,” Windermere is not listed as a Named Insured on either the Declarations page or on the endorsement adding Named Insureds to the Declarations page. Instead, the policy’s only reference to Windermere is located in the Certificate of Liability it was issued prior to Student Life’s 2014 camp, which included it as an “Additional Insured,” providing:

Windermere Conference Center is included as Additional Insured on the General Liability policy, as per endorsement #CG 82 24, ed. 12/01, and on the Automobile Liability policy, as per endorsement #CA 8518, ed. 6/09.

[Doc. 35-7 (“Certificate of Liability Insurance”) (emphasis added)]. The Additional Insured Endorsement [*34] provides that it “is added to SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED, 5. AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INSURED(S).” [Doc. 35-17, p.1 (“Endorsement”).] Had Great American intended to make Windermere a “Named Insured,” it could have identified it as a “Named Insured” within the Certificate of Liability, or it could have provided that Windermere be added to the Named Insured Endorsement, rather than merely “Section II — Who is an Insured.” It did neither. For these reasons, an ordinary person would understand Windermere to be an “insured,” not a “Named Insured,” and thus, the words “you” and “your” throughout the policy do not refer to Windermere. Accordingly, the provision that expands coverage for “Named Insureds” to cover their employees as insureds does not apply to Windermere. Because Brown is not an insured under the policy and therefore not entitled to coverage, summary judgment is granted in favor of Great American on this point.

D. Duty to Defend

Great American also contends that it owes no duty to defend Windermere or Brown and it should be granted summary judgment on this claim. Under Missouri law, the duty to defend “arises whenever there is a potential or possible liability to pay based on [*35] the facts at the outset of the case and is not dependent on the probable liability to pay based on the facts ascertained through trial.” Columbia Cas. Co. v. HIAR Holding, L.L.C., 411 S.W.3d 258, 265 n.10 (Mo. 2013) (internal quotation marks removed). Because the Court has already found that Brown and other Windermere employees are not insureds under Great American’s policy and thus, not entitled to coverage, it follows that Great American has no duty to defend Brown.11

11 This rationale was also articulated in Great American’s denial letter, which provided:

First, as to Kendra Brown, she is not listed as an additional insured on the Certificate of Liability Insurance, nor is there any indication on the [Certificate] that additional insured status is to be afforded to employees of Windermere. Finally, there is nothing in the specific form referenced on the Certificate . . . nor anywhere else in the Lifeway Policy, that affords additional insured status to Kendra Brown or any other Windermere employee. . . . Kendra Brown is simply not an additional insured under the Lifeway Policy such that Great American is denying the tender made on behalf of Kendra Brown.

[Doc. 35-18, p. 5-6 of 12 (“Feb. 4, 2016 Denial Letter”)].

As to whether Great American owes a duty to defend Windermere, the Endorsement makes clear that any coverage for Windermere as an additional insured would be excess, and the policy does not afford [*36] a defense when (1) its coverage is excess and (2) when the insured is being provided a defense by another carrier.12 Under Missouri law, “‘an insurer’s duty to defend is purely contractual.'” Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Unnerstall, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3430, 2009 WL 57451 at *4 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (quoting Crown Ctr. Redevelopment Corp. v. Occidental Fire, 716 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)). “If there is no contract to defend, there is no duty to defend.” Id. In relevant part, the Endorsement provides:

5. AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INSURED(S)

a. Additional Insured — Manager or Lessor of Premises

***

(2) With respect to the insurance afforded the Additional Insured identified in Paragraph A.(1) of this endorsement, the following additional provisions apply:

***

(d) Coverage provided herein is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the Additional Insured whether the other insurance is primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis unless a written contractual arrangement specifically requires this insurance to be primary.

12 This rationale was also articulated in Great American’s denial letter, which provided:

[E]ven if indemnity coverage did exist for Windermere and Kendra Brown under the Lifeway Policy, it is also clear that that [sic] Great American owes no defense obligation of the pending lawsuit. Your December 17, 2015 correspondence renewing the tender of defense on behalf of both Windermere and Kendra Brown makes clear that Windermere is being [*37] afforded a defense by Church Mutual and that Kendra Brown is being defended by both Church Mutual and Shelter. . . . [T]he Social Service Agency General Liability Broadening Endorsement makes clear that any coverage that did exist would be excess over all other insurance, including both the Church Mutual and Shelter policies. The “Other Insurance” provision of the Lifeway Policy makes clear that, where its coverage is excess and a defense is being provided by another carrier, Great American owes no duty to defend. Hence, Windermere’s and Kendra Brown’s tender of the defense of the pending lawsuit is denied for this additional reason.

[Doc. 35-18, p. 6 (“Feb. 4, 2016 Denial Letter”)].

The Additional Insured Endorsement’s Section 5.a.(2)(d) is clear that any coverage afforded is “excess over any other valid and collectible insurance,” regardless of the priority of coverage of the insurance–be it “primary, excess, [or] contingent.” In this case, Church Mutual had already tendered, or attempted to tender its policy limits on Windermere’s behalf in the underlying lawsuit. Therefore, although Windermere is entitled to coverage under the Great American policy, this coverage is excess.

The Other Insurance provision then states that where coverage is excess [*38] and the insured is being provided a defense by another carrier, Great American has no defense obligation. [Doc. 42-2, p. 66-68 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)]. Specifically, this provision provides:

SECTION IV — COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS

***

4. Other Insurance

***

(2) When this insurance is excess we will have no duty under Coverages A or B to defend the Insured against any “suit” if any other insurer has a duty to defend the Insured against the “suit.” . . .

Windermere is currently being defended by its own insurance carrier, Church Mutual. Because the policy is clear that there is no defense obligation where coverage is excess and a defense is being provided by another carrier, which is the case here, the Court rejects Windermere’s contention that it is entitled to a defense based on a potential for coverage. Therefore, summary judgment is granted for Great American on its duty to defend.

E. Medical Payments Coverage

Finally, Great American moves for summary judgment as to the Medical Payments coverage for Richards’s medical expenses. In its November 17, 2015 letter to Great American, Windermere demanded the Coverage C Medical Payments limits for Richards. The provision governing Medical [*39] Payments provides in relevant part:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM

***

Coverage C — Medical Payments

1. Insuring Agreement

a. We will pay medical expenses as described below for “bodily injury” caused by an accident:

***

provided that:

***

(b) the expenses are incurred and reported to us within one year of the date of the accident; and

***

[Doc. 42-2, p. 62 of 166 (“CGL Policy”)].

Great American argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as to this coverage because medical expenses were not reported to Great American within the time limit provided in Paragraph 1.a.(b). This provision provides that Great American will pay medical expenses for bodily injury “provided that . . . (b) the expenses are incurred and reported to us within one year of the date of the accident.” Section 1.a.(b) (emphasis added).

Richards’s accident occurred on June 4, 2014. Neither she nor anyone on her behalf made claim for Medical Payments coverage until Windermere’s November 17, 2015 demand letter more than one year after the date of the accident. Therefore, Great American is entitled to summary judgment as to the Medical Payments coverage.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Great American Alliance [*40] Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. 34]. Summary judgment is granted on Great American’s liability coverage for Kendra Brown, individually, as an additional insured; Great American’s duty to defend Kendra Brown and Windermere; and Great American’s Medical Payments coverage for Karlee Richards’s injuries. Summary judgment is denied on Great American’s coverage for Windermere as an additional insured. It is further ordered that on or before July 25, 2017, Defendants may file any motions for summary judgment not inconsistent with this order as to the issues ruled against them.

/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey

NANETTE K. LAUGHREY

United States District Judge

Dated: July 5, 2017

Jefferson City, Missouri


Colorado Federal District Court judge references a ski area lift ticket in support of decision granting the ski area’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit.

The Federal District Court in this case used the language of the lift ticket to support the defendant ski area’s motion for summary judgment. The decision  also says the release is valid for lift accidents in Colorado closing one of the last gaps in suits against ski areas in Colorado.

Rumpf v. Sunlight, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107946

State: Colorado, United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Plaintiff: Sally Rumpf & Louis Rumpf

Defendant: Sunlight, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium

Defendant Defenses: (1) they are barred by the exculpatory language contained in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket; (2) they fail for a lack of expert testimony; and (3) that Sally Rumpf
was negligent per se under the Ski Safety Act. 

Holding: for the Defendant 

Year: 2016 

The plaintiff traveled to Glenwood Springs, Colorado to visit family and ski. She rented equipment from the
defendant ski area, Ski Sunlight and purchased a lift ticket. As required to rent the ski equipment, the plaintiff signed a release. 

While attempting to board a chair lift, the plaintiff injured her shoulder. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted with this decision. 

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts. 

In the statement of the facts, the court quoted from the language on the lift ticket.

Holder understands that he/she is responsible for using the ski area safely and for having the physical dexterity to safely load, ride and unload the lifts. Holder agrees to read and understand all signage and instructions and agrees to comply with them. Holder understands that he/she must control his/her speed and course at all times and maintain a proper lookout. Holder understands that snowmobiles, snowcats, and snowmaking may be encountered at any time. In consideration of using the premises, Holder agrees to ASSUME ALL RISKS associated with the activities and to HOLD HARMLESS the Ski Area and its representatives for all claims for injury to person or property. Holder agrees that any and all disputes between Holder and the Ski Area regarding an alleged incident shall be governed by COLORADO LAW  and EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION shall be in the State or Federal Courts of the State of Colorado.

What is interesting is the Colorado Skier Safety Act, C.R.S. §§ 33-44-107(8)(b) requires specific language to be on the lift ticket.

WARNING

Under Colorado law, a skier assumes the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing and may not recover from any ski area operator for any injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, including: Changing weather conditions; existing and changing snow conditions; bare spots; rocks; stumps; trees; collisions with natural objects, man-made objects, or other skiers; variations in terrain; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.

It is unclear from the decision, and I do not have a copy of the Ski Sunlight lift ticket, to know if the required language is on the lift ticket. However, the language that was on the lift ticket was important and used by the court to make its decision.

The language required by the Colorado Skier Safety Act speaks to the risks assumed by a skier while skiing and does not speak to any risks of a chair lift. This creates an obvious conflict in the law for a ski area. Do you use the language required by the statute or use different language that a federal judge has said was  instructive in stopping the claims of a plaintiff. 

The court found the plaintiff had read and understood the release and knew she was bound by it. The plaintiff’s argument centered on the theory that the release did not cover lift accidents based on a prior case, Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (1998). That case held that a ski area owes the highest degree of care to skiers on the lift. 

Plaintiffs further argue that the exculpatory language at issue is “only applicable to ski cases when the accident or injury occurs while the plaintiff is skiing or snowboarding on the slopes,” and not when loading the ski lift. 

The Bayer decision changed the liability issues for Colorado Ski Areas. It also created the only gap in  protection for Colorado Ski Areas between the Colorado Skier Safety Act and release law. However, this was significantly modified by Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662, reviewed in Question answered; Colorado Premises Liability Act supersedes Colorado Ski Area Safety act. Standard of care owed skiers on chairlift’s reasonable man standard?

The court then reviewed the requirements under Colorado law for releases to be valid. 

Exculpatory agreements, which attempt to insulate a party from liability for its own negligence, are generally recognized under Colorado law, but are construed narrowly and “closely scrutinized” to ensure that the agreement was fairly entered into and that the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Additionally, the  terms of exculpatory agreements must be strictly construed against the drafter. 

The court reiterated several times that it was the intent of the parties within the language of the release that was the important aspect of the release, more than the specific language of the release. This intent was  supported by the language on the lift ticket. Colorado has a 4 factor test to determine the validity of a release. 

…in determining the validity of an exculpatory agreement, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the service provided involves a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service provided; (3) whether the agreement was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. 

Skiing in Colorado is recreational and not a service, so there is no public duty that would void a release. Because it is a service, and the plaintiff is free to go ski else where there is no adhesion so the agreement was entered into by the parties fairly. 

Adhesion was defined by the court in Colorado as:

…Colorado defines an adhesion contract as “generally not bargained for, but imposed on the public for a necessary  service on a take it or leave it basis.” However, printed form contracts offered on a take it or leave it basis, alone, do not render the agreement an adhesion contract.

For the plaintiff to win her argument, the plaintiff must show “, “that the parties were greatly disparate in bargaining power, that there was no opportunity for negotiation, or that [the] services could not be obtained elsewhere.”

The court then applied contract law to determine if the agreement was ambiguous.

“Interpretation of a written contract and the determination of whether a provision in the contract is ambiguous are questions of law.” Under Colorado law, I must examine the actual language of the agreements for legal jargon, length and complication, and any likelihood of confusion or failure of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions.

The court in reviewing the release found the release to clearly and unambiguously set forth the party’s intent to release the ski area from liability.

The court again backed up its decision by referring to the language on the lift ticket. 

Furthermore, the ski lift ticket specifically references safely loading, riding and unloading Sunlight’s ski lifts and provides that the “Holder agrees to ASSUME ALL RISKS associated with the activities and to HOLD HARMLESS the Ski Area and its representatives for all claims for injury to person or property.” 

As such the release was valid and stopped the claims of the plaintiff and her spouse.

So Now What?

Although the basics of the decision are familiar under Colorado law, the court’s reference to the language on the lift ticket is a departure from Colorado law and the law of most other states. See Lift tickets are not contracts and rarely work as a release in most states

Whether or not a lift ticket standing by itself is enough to stop a claim is still in the air and probably will be. The language on this lift ticket may have been different than the language required by law, which basically states the skier assumes the risk of skiing. The required statutory language does not cover any issues with loading, unloading or riding chair lifts. 

This creates a major conflict for ski areas. What do you put on the lift ticket. The statute requires specific language; however, there are no penalties for failing to put the language on the lift ticket. However, it is negligence to violate any part of the statute, if that negligence caused an injury. 

C.R.S. §§ 33-44-104. Negligence – civil actions.

(1) A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.

(2) A violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704 (1) (a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.

Failing to put the language on the lift ticket by itself could not cause an injury. The language required on the lift ticket is the same language required to be posted where ever lift tickets are sold and posted at the bottom of all base area lifts. Base area lifts are the lifts used to get up the mountain. Lifts that start further up the mountain, which require a lift right to reach don’t need the warning signs. 

My advice is to include the statutory language and much of the language of this decision on lift tickets. You just don’t want to walk into a courtroom and be accused of failing to follow the law. You might be right, but you will look bad and looking bad is the first step in writing a check. The biggest limitation is going to be the size of the lift ticket and print size.

This case, although decided before Question answered; Colorado Premises Liability Act supersedes Colorado Ski Area Safety act. Standard of care owed skiers on chairlift’s reasonable man standard? and was quoted in this decision, it adds another block into what is now an almost impregnable wall against claims from skiers in Colorado.

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

clip_image002 clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com 

By Recreation Law  Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H.
Moss

 #AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, exculpatory, ski
lift, rental agreement, lift tickets, ski, summary judgment, sports,
recreational, snow, service provided, ski area, loading, skiing, language
contained, unambiguous language, adhesion contract, unambiguously, exculpation,
bargaining, equipment rental, loss of consortium, negligence claims,
collectively, safely, riding, Ski Safety Act, question of law, ski resort,
standard of care, moving party, Ski Sunlight, Chair Lift, Loading, Unloading,
Lift Ticket, Release,

 

 

 


Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998)

Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998)
Eric Bayer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Crested Butte
Mountain Resort, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97SA145
Supreme Court
May 18, 1998
Petition for Rehearing DENIED. EN BANC. June 22, 1998
Certification of Questions of Law from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Pursuant to C.A.R. 21.1
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C., Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, Colorado, Purvis, Gray, Schuetze & Gordon, Robert A. Schuetze, Glen F. Gordon, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

White & Steele, P.C., Glendon L. Laird, John M. Lebsack, Peter W. Rietz, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee.

EN BANC
JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in the dissent.
JUSTICE HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[1] Pursuant to C.A.R. 21.1, we agreed to answer the following questions certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

What standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to users of those lifts in the winter season?

Separately, and more particularly, does the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act and/or the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act preempt or otherwise supersede the pre-existing Colorado common law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season?

[2] These questions arise in connection with Eric Bayer’s negligence suit against Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc. (Crested Butte) involving serious injuries he sustained after falling approximately 30 feet from a ski lift at the Crested Butte ski area.

[3] The federal district court concluded that the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act (Tramway Act) and the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act (Ski Safety Act) have substituted a lesser degree of care for ski lift operators than the highest degree of care, thus superseding our holding in Summit County Development v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 40, 441 P.2d 658, 664 (1968). Based on its ruling that a standard of ordinary care applies, the district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case.

[4] In answering the certified questions, we reaffirm our holding in Bagnoli. A ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the lift’s practical operation, regardless of the season.

I.

[5] Eric Bayer, a 19-year-old college student and resident of Florida, was skiing at the Crested Butte ski area on December 31, 1992. He boarded the Paradise Lift, a double-chair, center pole lift, with a person whom he did not know. This lift was not equipped with restraining devices on the chairs. Bayer rode the Paradise Lift for about 100 yards, lost consciousness, slumped in his chair, and slid feet first to the ground below. He suffered serious and permanent head injuries from the fall. The cause of his unconsciousness remains unknown.

[6] The Passenger Tramway Safety Board (Board), which regulates ski lifts in Colorado, requires the use of restraining devices during summer lift operation but has no companion requirement for winter operation. Bayer does not dispute that Crested Butte complied with applicable Board regulations.

[7] The existence and scope of a legal duty of care is a question of law. See United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 519 (Colo. 1992). In Bagnoli, we determined that a ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with practical operation of a lift. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664. In answering the certified questions, we must determine whether the Tramway Act or the Ski Safety Act, or the two in combination, have modified or preempted our holding in Bagnoli.[fn1]

II.

[8] We hold that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act, alone or in combination, have not preempted or superseded the common law standard requiring a ski lift operator to exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the ski lift. The General Assembly did not intend by either act to substitute a standard of care lesser than the highest degree.

[9] Under the Tramway Act, the primary responsibility for the design and operation of ski lifts, consistent with our holding in Bagnoli, rests with the operators; the board is to adopt reasonable standards for the industry, but these are not intended to preclude common law negligence actions or the duty to exercise the highest degree of care. The Ski Safety Act establishes the relative duties of skiers and ski area operators on the ski slopes, limits damage awards, and precludes liability claims resulting from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, while expressly excluding ski lift accidents from these limitations.

A.

[10] The Highest Degree of Care

[11] A basic proposition of tort law is that the amount of care demanded by the standard of reasonable conduct must be in proportion to the risk; the greater the danger, the higher is the degree of caution which the person owing the duty must exercise. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 34, at 208-09 (5th ed. 1984). As we said in Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 587 (Colo. 1984), “It is axiomatic in the law of negligence that the greater the risk, the greater the amount of care required to avoid injury to others.”

[12] Our holding in Bagnoli squarely placed on lift operators the duty to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the ski lift because (1) passengers give up their freedom of action and movement, surrendering themselves to the care and custody of the ski lift operator, (2) there is usually nothing passengers can do to cause or prevent the accident, and (3) the operator has exclusive possession and control of the ski lift. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664. We derived these factors directly from our prior decision in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s, Inc., 156 Colo. 46, 56, 396 P.2d 933, 938-39 (1964), wherein we held that amusement ride operators must “exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation” of the ride.[fn2]

[13] Underlying our adoption in Bagnoli of the Lewis factors is that ski lifts are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. A fall from the lift can be calamitous. Passengers entrust their safety to the lift operators. Operation of a ski lift thus entails both greater danger and greater responsibility than circumstances involving ordinary care.

[14] In addressing the federal district court’s conclusion that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act supersede Bagnoli, we first discuss the legislative design and purposes of the two acts.

B.

[15] The Tramway Act And The Ski Safety Act [16] The statutory canons of construction require us to give effect to the plain meaning of statutory enactments; we must employ rules of grammar and common usage and accord to technical terms and legislative definitions their particular meaning. See 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997).

[17] The Colorado General Assembly initially addressed ski safety in Colorado through the 1965 Tramway Act. The act’s purpose is to assist in safeguarding life, health, property, and the welfare of the state in the operation of passenger tramways.[fn3] See 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The act establishes a Board “to prevent unnecessary mechanical hazards” and to “assure that reasonable design and construction are used for, that accepted safety devices and sufficient personnel are provided for, and that periodic inspections and adjustments are made which are deemed essential to the safe operation of, passenger tramways.” 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The General Assembly has confirmed that, notwithstanding the powers and duties of the Tramway Board, “[t]he primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection rests with the area operators” of passenger tramway devices. 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added).

[18] The legislature has empowered the Board[fn4] with rulemaking and enforcement authority to carry out its functions. The Board is authorized, but not required, to utilize the standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), see 25-5-704, 8 C.R.S. (1997), and has authority to conduct investigations and inspections, to discipline ski area operators, to issue licenses, to order emergency shut downs, and to engage in other functions related to the purpose of the Tramway Act, see 25-5-704 to -716, 8 C.R.S. (1997).[fn5] The Board by regulation has adopted the ANSI 1992 standards, with some additions, revisions, and deletions. See Rule 0.1, 3 C.C.R. 718-1 at 1.

[19] Building on the construct of the Tramway Act, the General Assembly followed with the Ski Safety Act in 1979. This act supplements the Tramway Act’s focus on ski lifts, but its principal function is to define the duties of ski areas and skiers with regard to activities and features on the ski slopes. See 33-44-102, 9 C.R.S. (1997). In 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act, the legislature limited the liability of ski area operators for accidents on the slopes involving the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” See ch. 256, sec. 7, 33-44-112, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1543; see also ch. 256, sec. 1, Legislative Declaration, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1540; Graven v. Vail Assocs., 909 P.2d 514, 517-18 (Colo. 1995).

[20] Included within the inherent risks of skiing are dangers or conditions that are an “integral part of the sport of skiing,” such as weather, snow conditions, collisions with natural and man-made objects, and terrain variations. See 33-44-103(3.5), 9 C.R.S. (1997). The skier must know the range of his or her ability, ski in control, maintain a proper lookout while skiing, avoid collisions with other skiers, and not use a ski slope or trail or passenger tramway while impaired by alcohol or other controlled substances. See 33-44-109, 9 C.R.S. (1997). The statute provides that “no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” 33-44-112, 9 C.R.S. (1997). See also Graven, 909 P.2d at 518-21.

[21] For their part, ski area operators must maintain a sign system, including signs indicating the level of difficulty of the area’s slopes and trails, notices that warn of danger areas, closed trails, and ski area boundaries, and the marking of man-made structures that are not readily visible to skiers. See 33-44-107, 9 C.R.S. (1997). They must undertake safety precautions related to the operation of equipment such as snowmobiles and motorized snow-grooming vehicles on slopes and trails within ski area boundaries. See 33-44-108, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[22] The Ski Safety Act also addresses aspects of ski lift operation through several provisions which regulate passenger conduct. Passengers must have sufficient physical dexterity to use a lift safely and are required to observe certain conduct when embarking, riding, and disembarking a ski lift. See 33-44-105, 9 C.R.S. (1997). They may not move outside designated areas, throw objects from the tramway, engage in conduct that could cause injury to others, or disobey instructions from the ski area operator. See id. On the other hand, ski area operators must maintain a sign system including specific instructions such as “Keep Ski Tips Up,” and “Unload Here.” See 33-44-106, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[23] Any violation of the statute’s provisions applicable to skiers constitutes negligence on their part; in tandem, any violations by a ski area operator of the Ski Safety Act or the Tramway Act constitute negligence as to them. See 33-44-104, 9 C.R.S. (1997). The effect of these statutory provisions is to make violations of the Ski Safety Act and/or Tramway Act negligence per se.

C.

[24] Effect Of The Tramway Act And The Ski Safety Act On The Degree Of Care Applicable To Ski Lift Operators

[25] Of controlling significance in answering the certified questions of law is that we infer no abrogation of a common law right of action absent clear legislative intent. See Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo. 1997); Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 423 (Colo. 1991). If the legislature wishes to abrogate rights that would otherwise be available under the common law, it must manifest its intent “expressly or by clear implication.” McMinn, 945 P.2d at 408.

[26] Crested Butte contends, and the federal district court determined, that the legislature has replaced the high standard we announced in Bagnoli with a standard of ordinary care. In arguing for a duty of care lesser than the highest degree, Crested Butte relies on the 1965 provision in the Tramway Act exempting ski lifts from laws of the state applicable to “common carriers.” It also argues, in the alternative, that the “legislature’s enactment of a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme for safety requirements at ski areas manifests the intent to preempt the field of common law liability, especially where the claim is that a particular safety device was not installed on a lift.”

[27] To the contrary, we conclude that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act, together with the Bagnoli standard of care, provide a comprehensive Colorado framework which preserves ski lift common law negligence actions, while at the same time limiting skier suits for inherent dangers on the slopes and defining per se negligence for violation of statutory and regulatory requirements.

1.

[28] The Common Carrier Provision Of The Tramway Act [29] The Tramway Act states that Provisions in lieu of others. The provisions for regulation, registration, and licensing of passenger tramways and the area operators thereof under this part 7 shall be in lieu of all other regulations or registration, or licensing requirements, and passenger tramways shall not be construed to be common carriers within the meaning of the laws of this state.

[30] 25-5-717, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added.)[fn6]

[31] We must read and interpret statutory language in its context. See 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997) (“Words and phrases shall be read in context.”). The phrase concerning common carriers in section 25-5-717 is an integral part of a provision dealing with regulation, registration, and licensing of passenger tramways. Its evident purpose in the context of the “meaning of the laws of this state” is to prohibit any board or agency, other than the Tramway Board, from registering, regulating, or licensing ski lifts. For example, ski lifts are not to be considered common carriers subject to Public Utilities Commission (PUC) jurisdiction. Without this provision, ski lifts arguably would have been under the very broad statutory definition of “common carriers” for regulatory purposes. See 40-1-102(3)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (1997).[fn7]

[32] We did not rely in Bagnoli on the notion that ski lift operators are common carriers when enunciating the applicable standard of care. Rather, we applied the Lewis factors to ski lift operators because of the degree of control they exercise over passengers, the relative powerlessness of a passenger to secure his or her own safety under the circumstances, and the consequent state of dependence and trust which a passenger must place in the lift operators. In Lewis, we said It is not important whether defendants were serving as a carrier or engaged in activities for amusement. The important factors are, the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the conduct of their business and they should be held to the highest degree of care.

[33] Lewis, 156 Colo. at 57, 396 P.2d at 939 (emphasis added). One of the justices vigorously dissented as to the degree of care expected, on the basis that “this is not a `carrier case.'” Id. at 72, 396 P.2d at 947 (McWilliams, C.J., dissenting).

[34] In Bagnoli, we nevertheless adhered to the basic proposition that enunciating the degree of care to be exercised depends on the danger and degree of responsibility involved. We emphasized that the duty in negligence actions “remains one of exercising due care, and due care depends upon the attendant circumstances.” 166 Colo. at 38-39, 441 P.2d at 664 (emphasis added). We held that the attendant circumstances of ski lift operation, like amusement rides, demand the highest degree of care. We pointed out that other jurisdictions had imposed on ski lift operators a common carrier status in requiring the higher duty of care, but that, in Colorado, common carrier status made no difference in this regard in light of the Lewis factors. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 39-40, 441 P.2d at 664.[fn8] Thus, in Bagnoli, we held that a Colorado jury instruction need not designate a ski lift operator as a common carrier. Because of the existence of the above described rule of Lewis, supra, and the nature and purpose of our statutes pertaining to common carriers at the time of this accident, there was no need to designate the ski lift operator as a common carrier in Instruction No. 15.

[35] Id. We said that the inclusion of the “common carrier” description in the actual instruction delivered to the jury in Bagnoli was of no consequence, since the paramount purpose of Instruction No. 15 was to convey to the jury the rule of law that a chair ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the ski lift.

[36] Id., 441 P.2d at 664-65 (emphasis added).

[37] Thus, while common carriers may be required to exercise the highest degree of care towards their passengers, it does not follow that transport device operators who are not classified as common carriers are dispensed from exercising the highest degree of care when the attendant circumstances warrant such caution.

2.

[38] Legislative Action Subsequent To Bagnoli

[39] The legislature has carefully chosen how to let stand, supplement, or limit application of the common law in the arena of ski safety; it has chosen not to alter the standard of care applicable to ski lift safety. In 1990, the General Assembly limited the liability of ski area operators for claims involving the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. However, the amendments expressly prevent ski lift operators from claiming that the limitation on a ski area’s liability applies to causes of action arising from ski lift accidents. See 33-44-103(3.5), 33-44-112, 9 C.R.S. (1997).[fn9] As further confirmation of the intent to exclude ski lift accidents from the liability limitations, the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative Scott McInnis, testified that the 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act would not affect common law tort liability as it related to ski lifts: “This bill does not exclude a ski area from negligence and the liability it faces with ski lifts.” House floor debate on S.B. 80, Mar. 21, 1990.

[40] Another example of the General Assembly’s careful distinctions between ski slope and ski lift accident liability is found in section 33-44-113. This provision limits the amount of damages recoverable from a ski lift operator for accidents that occur while skiing but specifically excludes damages “associated with an injury occurring to a passenger while riding on a passenger tramway.” 33-44-113, 9 C.R.S. (1997).[fn10] Thus, in both a limitation of liability provision and in a limitation of damages provision related to skiing, the General Assembly chose to write an exception preserving the liability and damages law applicable to ski lift accidents.

[41] The legislature has amended the Tramway Act eleven times since the Bagnoli decision: in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1993.[fn11] None of those amendments altered the ski lift operator liability rules or shifted to the Tramway Board the operator’s “primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection.” 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The Ski Safety Act was passed in 1979[fn12] and substantively amended in 1990,[fn13] with cross references being made to the Tramway Act. The General Assembly did not choose to overrule Bagnoli on either of these occasions.

3.

[42] Statutory Preemption Of Common Law Causes Of Action And Standards Of Care

[43] Crested Butte further suggests that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act together manifest the legislature’s intent to preempt the field of ski lift safety and, thus, abrogate common law negligence actions and/or the applicable standard of care. Crested Butte insists that the following provisions, which make violations of the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act negligence per se, replace common law liability except as provided therein

Negligence — civil actions. . . .

(2) A violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704(1)(a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.

[44] 33-44-104(2), 9 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added), and, Inconsistent law or statute. Insofar as any provision of law or statute is inconsistent with the provisions of this article, this article controls.

[45] 33-44-114, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[46] We disagree with Crested Butte’s proposed construction of these provisions. In section 33-44-104(2),[fn14] the legislature determined that any violation of the Tramway Act, or Board regulations, would constitute negligence for purposes of a tort suit based on an alleged violation. A statutory provision which defines violation of a statute or rule as negligence per se is not necessarily inconsistent with maintenance of a common law negligence action, and the creation of a statutory remedy does not bar preexisting common law rights of action, in the absence of clear legislative intent to negate the common law right. See McMinn, 945 P.2d at 408; see also Trigg v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.2d 1058, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1986) (in ski lift accident case, both common law negligence and negligence per se Colorado jury instructions may be required, if justified by sufficient evidence). We conclude that section 33-44-104(2) demonstrates no indication that the legislature wished to bar, rather than supplement, common law actions in ski lift cases.

[47] Crested Butte contends that the Tramway Act’s provisions (1) establishing a Board to “assure that . . . accepted safety devices . . . are provided for,” see 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997), and (2) empowering the Board to “establish reasonable standards of design and operational practices,” see 25-5-709, 8 C.R.S. (1997), necessarily imply that the General Assembly intended to preempt the field of common law liability in ski lift cases. See Lunsford v. Western States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 87 (Colo. 1995) (stating that “resort to common law principles is preempted regarding issues to which the . . . statute expressly applies or where there are other pertinent statutory provisions. However, if the . . . statute is inapplicable and no other applicable statutes exist, we will rely on the common law”).

[48] The primary responsibility for design and operation of a ski lift rests with the operator. The standards adopted by the Board are intended to be reasonable regulatory standards, not to comprise the operator’s sole duty in regard to passenger safety. Compliance with these standards is evidence of due care but not conclusive evidence.

[49] In our electricity cases, for example, we have explained that regulatory standards for the safe operation of a dangerous instrumentality do not preclude a finding of negligence under the common law. For example, in City of Fountain v. Gast, 904 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. 1995), and Yampa Valley Electric v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252, 257-58 (Colo. 1993), we held that, despite the existence of comprehensive National Electric Safety Code standards for the industry, a person may maintain a negligence action against a utility for breach of a common law duty of care. In this state, electric utilities must exercise the highest degree of care to protect the public. See Gast, 904 P.2d at 480.

[50] Evidence of a defendant’s compliance with industry standards, while relevant and admissible for determining whether the defendant breached its duty of care, is not conclusive evidence of due care. See Telecky, 862 P.2d at 257 (compliance with NESC standards is only a part of the determination that the jury was required to make); see also Gast, 904 P.2d at 480 (compliance with NESC standards does not conclusively establish that the highest degree of care was exercised, but is merely one factor to be considered in determining the highest degree of skill and care); Blueflame Gas v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 591 (Colo. 1984) (compliance with an administrative safety regulation by propane supplier does not conclusively establish that the highest degree of care was exercised, but is merely one circumstance to be considered).[fn15]

[51] Although the Restatement (Second) of Torts does not have the force of law, we may look to it as a summary of guiding legal principles. The Restatement (Second) of Torts 288C (1965), supports our conclusion that additional tort remedies remain available despite statutory regulation of an industry “Compliance with a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence where a reasonable man would take additional precautions.” In the comment to this section, the Restatement explains that, “Where a statute, ordinance or regulation is found to define a standard of conduct . . . the standard defined is normally a minimum standard, applicable to the ordinary situations contemplated by the legislation. This legislative or administrative minimum does not prevent a finding that a reasonable man would have taken additional precautions where the situation is such as to call for them.” Id. 288C, cmt. a.

[52] We reject Crested Butte’s argument that section 285 rather than section 288C of the Restatement should assist our reasoning in this case. Section 285 states that the determination of the standard of conduct of a reasonable person applicable to a given case may be: (a) established by a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which so provides; or (b) adopted by the court from a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which does not so provide; or (c) established by judicial decision; or (d) applied to the facts of the case by the trial judge or the jury if there is no such enactment, regulation, or decision. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 285 (1965).

[53] Crested Butte’s analysis fails to account for the logic of section 288C, which states that a standard of conduct defined by statute, ordinance, or regulation as described in section 285 is normally a “minimum standard,” and does not prevent a finding that a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions when the situation requires. Id. 288C.

[54] If Crested Butte could point to some part of the Tramway Board’s statutes or regulations which prohibits it from taking additional safety precautions, or a patent conflict preventing utilization of a particular safety device under the circumstances, its argument that Board standards preempt common law negligence actions might have merit. For example, in Jefferson County School District R-1 v. Gilbert, 725 P.2d 774, 778-79 (Colo. 1986), we held that a city met its duty of care to make streets safe because it met engineering standards prescribed by statute; the statute specifically prohibited the city from installing a traffic signal unless an intersection met certain criteria. Thus, we held that the city did not have a duty to install traffic devices where the statute specifically prohibited the city from installing them except under certain conditions. Here, although the Board required restraining devices during summer operation and not winter, its regulations did not prohibit operation with restraining devices during winter operation.

[55] Crested Butte also asserts that the Bagnoli standard, if it still applies, should be limited to ski lift negligence actions based on operational errors or defects in equipment and not to design of the lift. Although the facts in Bagnoli related to operation of the lift in the loading procedure and not the design of the lift, section 25-5-705 of the Tramway Act affirms the ski lift operator’s primary responsibility for “design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection,” without restriction to the season of operation. The General Assembly has not stated in this regard that the operator’s duty is limited to exercising ordinary care. The Lewis and Bagnoli factors are applicable to each of these components of ski lift safety, and we hold that the ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care in regard to each.

[56] A differential standard between operation and design could discourage lift operators from adopting safer designs. Operators would be held to Bagnoli’s higher standard when operating with new safety devices, but a lower standard when choosing to stay with existing equipment. Adoption of Crested Butte’s argument that the Tramway Act and Ski Safety Act preempt common law liability would entail no responsibility on the part of ski operators to ensure safe design, other than to comply with the Board’s regulations. This notion is contrary to the legislature’s intent in assigning the primary responsibility for design to the operators, as well as contrary to a fundamental precept of tort law — that conduct adverse to evolving safety norms should not be rewarded. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 33, at 194-95 (5th ed. 1984).

III.

[57] Answers To Certified Questions

[58] The Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act do not contain express language or a clear implication to preempt common law actions or the standard of care for ski lift accident cases; rather, they evidence the opposite implication. The legislature’s intent in the Tramway Act is to “assist in safeguarding life, health, property, and the welfare of this state.” See 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added). “The primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection rests with the area operators of passenger tramway devices.” 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997). In the context of common law actions, our role has been to enunciate the degree of care which ski lift operators must exercise. Ordinary care is not applicable; the factors of passenger safety and operator control attendant to operation of a ski lift require the operator to exercise the highest degree of care. The legislature, despite numerous occasions in the adoption and amendment of the two acts, has not altered the applicability of the Bagnoli standard.

[59] We therefore answer the certified questions as follows: we hold that the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators in Colorado for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection of a ski lift, is the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the lift. Neither the Tramway Act nor the Ski Safety Act preempt or otherwise supersede this standard of care, whatever the season of operation.

[60] JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in the dissent.

[fn1] Of course, we do not determine whether Crested Butte breached its duty of care or any other issue remaining in the federal court litigation.

[fn2] Decided after passage of the Tramway Act based on an accident occurring before its passage, Bagnoli has been the law of Colorado for the last 30 years. The Colorado Jury Instructions include the following summary of its holding

12:13 AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND SKI LIFTS DUTY OF CARE WHERE USER LACKS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT It is the duty of the (owner)(operator) of an (amusement device)(ski lift) to exercise the highest degree of care a reasonably careful person could exercise under the same or similar circumstances, in keeping with the practical operation of such a device, for the safety of any person using the device with the (owner’s)(operator’s) express or implied permission.

The failure to exercise such care is negligence. CJI-Civ 3d

12:13 at 98. This instruction is used in ski lift and amusement ride cases and for “those kinds of devices which, to use, the user is required to give up his or her freedom of movement and control of the situation and submit him or herself to the control of the operator.” Id. at 99. The Instruction’s “Notes on Use” state that neither the Passenger Tramway Safety Act nor the Ski Safety and Liability Act changed the applicability of the instruction to ski lifts, except that a negligence per se instruction will be used in cases involving a violation of the Ski Safety Act or regulations of the Board. See id. Although the content of a Colorado Jury Instruction is not legally definitive, its long and common usage is persuasive on the matter of being a correct summary of the law. See Wade v. Olinger Life Ins. Co., 192 Colo. 401, 409 n. 7, 560 P.2d 446, 452 n. 7 (1977). [fn3] A passenger tramway is “a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis, or in cars on tracks, or suspended in the air by the use of steel cables, chains, or belts, or by ropes, and usually supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans.” 25-5-702(4), 8 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn4] The Board is comprised of one member representing the U.S. Forest Service and six members appointed by the governor, two representing the ski industry, two representing the public at large, and two members with experience in the tramway industry, to regulate passenger tramway devices. See 25-5-703, 8 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn5] The power and duties of the tramway board were specifically enumerated and reorganized into separate sections in the 1993 amendments to the tramway act. See ch. 267, secs. 7-8, 25-5-704 to -719, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1536-44.

[fn6] Section 25-5-718 was repealed and recodified as section 25-5-717 by the 1993 amendments to the Tramway Act. See ch. 267, sec. 8, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1538 & 1543. The provisions are nearly identical, and we refer to the most recent codification.

[fn7] “Common carrier” is defined in the public utilities statute as: “Every person directly or indirectly affording a means of transportation, or any service or facility in connection therewith, within this state by motor vehicle, aircraft, or other vehicle whatever by indiscriminately accepting and carrying for compensation passengers between fixed points or over established routes or otherwise . . . .” 40-1-102(3)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn8] Courts in other jurisdictions have addressed the issue of the duty of care owed by ski lift operators, with widely varying results. Some jurisdictions have stated that ski lifts constitute common carriers for purposes of tort liability. See Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, 900 (Cal.App. 1992) (ski lift is a common carrier for tort purposes); D’Amico v. Great American Recreation, Inc. 627 A.2d 1164, 1166 (N.J. Super. Law Div. 1992) (ski area operators are common carriers in the operation of ski lifts). But see McDaniel v. Dowell, 26 Cal. Rptr. 140 (Cal.App. 1962) (rope tow not a common carrier for tort liability purposes).

Whether or not they considered ski lifts to be common carriers, courts have differed as to the degree of care ski lift operators must exercise. Some states require the highest degree of care commensurate with a ski lift’s practical operation, see Hunt v. Sun Valley Co., 561 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1977) (applying Idaho law); Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 283 F.2d 533, 534 (2d Cir. 1960) (applying Vermont law); D’Amico, 627 A.2d at 1166-67; Squaw Valley, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d at 899-900, and other states require only ordinary care, see Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 524 P.2d 1101, 1107 (Mont. 1974); Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 374 A.2d 1187 (N.H. 1977); Friedman v. State, 282 N.Y.S.2d 858, 860 (Ct. Cl. 1967).

The question of the degree of care owed by ski lift operators to passengers is grounded in the common law and statutes particular to each state. We look to Colorado law as the basis for our determination that the highest degree of care applies to ski lift operators in this state.

[fn9] Section 33-44-103(3.5) provides in pertinent part:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

[fn10] Section 33-44-113 provides:

The total amount of damages which may be recovered from a ski area operator by a skier who uses a ski area for the purpose of skiing or for the purpose of sliding downhill on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, a sled, a tube, a ski-bob, a snowboard, or any other device and who is injured, excluding those associated with an injury occurring to a passenger while riding on a passenger tramway, shall not exceed one million dollars, present value, including any derivative claim by any other claimant, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars, present value, and including any claim attributable to noneconomic loss or injury, as defined in sections 13-21-102.5(2) C.R.S., whether past damages, future damages, or a combination of both, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

(Emphasis added.)

[fn11] See ch. 395, sec. 29, 66-25-9, 1973 Colo. Sess. Laws 1373; ch. 126, secs. 1-10, 1976 Colo. Sess. Laws 660-63; ch. 354, secs. 1-16, 1977 Colo. Sess. Laws 1288-92; ch. 433, secs. 120-122, 25-5-708 to -710, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 1661; ch. 315, secs. 1-7, 1983 Colo. Sess. Laws 1071-73; ch. 101, sec. 23, 25-5-717, 1985 Colo. Sess. Laws 411; ch. 193, secs. 1-10, 1986 Colo. Sess. Laws 974-78; ch. 172, sec. 83, 25-5-710, 1987 Colo. Sess. Laws 971; ch. 36, sec. 11, 25-5-710, 1988 Colo. Sess. Laws 317; ch. 301, sec. 40, 25-5-710, 1991 Colo. Sess. Laws 1917-18; ch. 267, secs. 1-11, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws 1532-44.

[fn12] See ch. 323, secs. 1-3, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 1237-44.

[fn13] See ch. 256, secs. 1-11, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1540-44.

[fn14] Section 33-44-104(2) was amended in 1994 to refer to section 25-5-704(1)(a) of the Tramway Act instead of section 25-5-710(1)(a) because of the 1993 amendments to the Tramway Act. See ch. 276, sec. 74, 33-44-104, 1994 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1644. Because the substance of the section is the same, we refer to the most recent codification.

[fn15] In Pizza v. Wolf Creek Ski Development Corp., 711 P.2d 671, 683 (Colo. 1985), before the 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act, we noted that the risks associated with skiing do not rise to the level of those associated with supplying electricity, operating amusement devices, and selling propane gas. However, in that case we were speaking to the dangers associated with skiing — such as variations in terrain, which skiers can guard against — and not the dangers related to the operation of ski lifts. See id. Rather, we stated in Bagnoli that the risks associated with operating ski lifts are much like those associated with operating amusement rides and based our conclusion regarding the applicable degree of care on the same factors we discussed in Lewis. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664.

[61] JUSTICE KOURLIS dissenting

[62] Because I do not believe that the common carrier standard of care enunciated in Summit County Development Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 33, 441 P.2d 658, 661 (1968), survives the General Assembly’s express pronouncements in the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act (Tramway Act) and the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act (Ski Safety Act), I respectfully dissent.

I.

[63] The issues certified to this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are: (1) what standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to winter season lift users; and (2) does the Tramway Act and/or the Ski [Safety] Act preempt or otherwise supersede the preexisting Colorado common law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season? I would answer the second question affirmatively, and clarify that the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators is one of ordinary negligence, as provided in the two Acts.

II.

[64] The plaintiff in this case, Eric Bayer, asks Crested Butte to insure him from injury while riding a ski lift, whether or not such injury was occasioned by negligence through mechanical, design or operational failure of the ski lift. Eric Bayer became unconscious and fell from the lift he was riding at Crested Butte ski area incurring severe injury. Bayer claims that Crested Butte had a duty to exercise “the highest degree of care,” and that such level of care would have required the installation of a restraining device on the lift from which he fell. He asserts no other wrongful action or omission by Crested Butte. Bayer concedes that the majority of ski lifts in Colorado do not have restraining devices and are certified for operation without them by the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (Safety Board). He also concedes that no statute, rule or regulation requires lifts to be equipped with such devices for winter operation. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Crested Butte, ruling that the applicable standard of care was reasonable care and that Crested Butte had exercised such reasonable care in the installation of the lift. On appeal, Bayer continues to argue that under Bagnoli, Crested Butte should be held to a higher standard of care than ordinary negligence. In my view, Bagnoli has no continuing life in light of intervening legislation; and the appropriate standard of care is ordinary and reasonable care.

III.

[65] In Bagnoli, this court determined that a lift operator was a “common carrier” with respect to the plaintiff and therefore owed the plaintiff “the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the chairlift.” Id. at 33, 441 P.2d at 661.

[66] The higher standard of care imposed in Bagnoli has traditionally been reserved for inherently dangerous activities. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Public Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 111-12, 570 P.2d 239, 241-42 (1977). Ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities warrant a rule of strict liability. See Western Stock Ctr., Inc. v. Sevit, Inc., 195 Colo. 372, 379, 578 P.2d 1045, 1050 (1978).

[67] The law has held common carriers to the higher standard of care, even though their activities are not necessarily inherently dangerous. The rationale for that higher standard arose out of their acceptance of an unusual responsibility to the public. See William L. Prosser, The Law of Torts 184 (3d ed. 1964). Additionally, burden of proof considerations played a role in the analysis, based upon the fact that a passenger on a mode of transport for hire is not familiar with the instrumentalities and appliances used for transportation and would be disadvantaged if required to prove the specific cause of the accident. See Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Fotheringham, 17 Colo. App. 410, 68 P. 978 (1902).

[68] The common carrier standard of care was initially rejected by this court in Hook v. Lakeside Park Co., 142 Colo. 277, 351 P.2d 261 (1960), as applied to amusement park devices on the theory that the “presumptions or inferences available to a passenger in an action against a carrier are not available” in an amusement park setting. Hook, 142 Colo. 283, 351 P.2d at 265.

[69] The court revisited the issue in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s Inc., 156 Colo. 46, 396 P.2d 933 (1964), and concluded that amusement park devices should be treated as common carriers[fn1] because “the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances of the case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the conduct of their business.” Id. at 56-57, 396 P.2d at 939. Three members of the Lewis court dissented on that point, distinguishing common carriers from recreational providers.

[70] If, indeed, a higher standard of care evolves primarily out of either an inherently dangerous activity or out of a common carrier status, clearly the court in Lewis was

relying upon the common carrier analysis, not a conclusion that amusement park devices are inherently dangerous.

[71] And thus, the court came to Bagnoli. In Bagnoli, the court noted that not all of the factors present in Lewis similarly applied to Bagnoli, but concluded nonetheless that Summit County Development Corporation was a common carrier and, as such, owed the plaintiff the highest degree of care. The court cited various other states that had similarly imposed a common carrier status on ski lift operators.

[72] The Bagnoli rationale turned on the common carrier status of the defendant. The court declared that a “ski lift facility, like other transportation facilities, and like the stagecoach amusement ride in Lewis, requires the operator to exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with its practical operation.” Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664.

[73] However, after we decided Bagnoli, the legislative landscape changed around the nation, including in Colorado. The chronology reflects that courts initially defined ski lifts as common carriers, and thereby activated a higher standard of care. Many legislatures, like Colorado’s General Assembly, then chose to act and declared that passenger tramways are not common carriers. Following legislative pronouncements that ski lifts were not to be treated as common carriers, other states have retreated from a determination that a higher standard of care applies.

[74] For example, in Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 524 P.2d 1101 (Mont. 1974), the Montana Supreme Court concluded that the duty of care owed by ski lift operators in Montana was one of reasonable and ordinary care because of the enactment of Montana’s Passenger Tramway Act which, in pertinent part, parallels the Tramway Act before us today.[fn2] See Pessl, 524 P.2d at 1107. See also Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 374 A.2d 1187 (N.H. 1977)(holding same as Pessl, and recognizing that states adopting such statutes typically did so in response to court decisions which imposed a higher degree of care); D’Amico v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 627 A.2d 1164 (N.J. 1992)(applying highest degree of care because New Jersey’s ski safety act did not include language exempting operators from common carrier status); Albert v. State, 362 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1974)(finding that chairlift operators are not common carriers under similarly worded N.Y. statute); Friedman v. State, 282 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1967)(same as Albert); Donald M. Zupanec, Annotation, Liability for Injury or Death from Ski Lift, Ski Tow, or Similar Device, 95 A.L.R.3d 203 (1979). The New Hampshire Supreme Court specifically recognized in Bolduc that the legislative decision to remove passenger tramways from common carrier status was in response to court cases like Bagnoli. See Bolduc, 374 A.2d at 1189.

[75] Hence, other courts around the nation have specifically deferred to the legislative determination that passenger tramways may no longer be treated as common carriers. Bagnoli explicitly concludes that lift operators should be treated as common carriers, and such a conclusion is no longer valid. Additionally, the Lewis factors relied upon in Bagnoli cannot stand as an independent basis for the imposition of a higher standard of care unrelated to common carrier status, because they are merely an articulation of the reasons why common carriers are held to a different standard. Those factors cannot stand alone.[fn3] Hence, in my view, the legislature has removed the cornerstone of the foundation upon which Bagnoli rested. As the California Court of Appeal stated in McDaniel v. Dowell, 26 Cal.Rptr. 140, 143 (Dist. Ct. App. 1962), absent classification of a ski lift operation as a common carrier, “[t]here is no other basis for the imposition upon the defendant [] of a duty to exercise the utmost care and diligence for the safety of the plaintiff.”[fn4] IV.

[76] The accident in Bagnoli occurred on April 21, 1962, three years prior to the effective date of the Tramway Act. The court in Bagnoli thus did not apply the Tramway Act even though the actual decision was handed down in 1968, after the Act’s passage.

[77] On July 1, 1965, the following provision of the Tramway Act went into effect The provisions for regulations, registration and licensing of passenger tramways and the operators thereof under this Part 7 shall be in lieu of all other regulations or registration, or licensing requirements, and passenger tramways[fn5] shall not be construed to be common carriers within the meaning of the laws of this state.

[78] 25-5-717, 11A C.R.S. (1989)(emphasis supplied).

[79] In answering the questions before us today, the Majority observes that we infer no abrogation of a common law right of action absent clear legislative intent. Maj. op. at 12. I find just such clear legislative intent apparent in the unambiguous language of the Tramway Act. Crested Butte operates ski lifts. Ski lifts are passenger tramways, and under the Tramway Act passenger tramways “shall not be construed to be common carriers.” 25-5-717, 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[80] The legislature expressly decided that ski lifts were not to be treated as common carriers in Colorado. In addition, the legislature implicitly occupied the field by enacting pervasive and comprehensive legislation for safety requirements regarding ski lifts. See Lunsford v. Western States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 87 (Colo. 1995)(noting that statutory preemption of areas of the common law may arise expressly or by clear implication).

[81] The Tramway Act is comprehensive in its scope of regulation of Colorado ski lifts In order to assist in safeguarding life, health, property and the welfare of this state, it is the policy of the State of Colorado to establish a board empowered to prevent unnecessary mechanical hazards in the operation of ski tows, lifts and tramways and to assure that reasonable design and construction are used for, that accepted safety devices and sufficient personnel are provided for, and that periodic inspections and adjustments are made which are deemed essential to the safe operations of ski tows, ski lifts and passenger tramways.

[82] 25-5-701, 11A C.R.S. (1989).[fn6]

[83] The Tramway Act further authorizes the Safety Board to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations relating to public safety in the design standards, construction, operation and maintenance of passenger tramways.” 25-5-710(a), 11A C.R.S. (1989). The Tramway Act directs the Safety Board to use general guidelines and standards adopted by the American Standards Association, Inc., see id.; and the Act makes the Safety Board responsible for establishing “reasonable standards of design and operational practices.” 25-5-710.1, 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[84] In 1979, the legislature expanded the scope of its pronouncements when it enacted the Ski Safety Act.[fn7] The express purpose of that Act was “to establish reasonable safety standards for the operation of ski areas and for skiers using them.” 33-44-102, 14 C.R.S. (1995).

[85] For purposes of the issue before the court, the Ski Safety Act achieves four results. First, it supplements the Tramway Act and further defines the relative rights and responsibilities of ski area operators and skiers. See 33-44-102. Second, it clarifies that negligent operation of a ski lift is not an “inherent risk of skiing.” Id. Third, it provides that a violation by a ski area operator of any portion of the Ski Safety Act or of any rule or regulation promulgated by the Safety Board shall constitute negligence. See 33-44-104(2). Lastly, it includes preemptive language as follows: “Insofar as any provision of law or statute is inconsistent with the provisions of this article, this article controls.” 33-44-114 (emphasis added).

[86] The cumulative effect of those provisions leaves no doubt as to the legislative intent to set forth the governing law concerning ski area liability: both with respect to operation of ski slopes and ski lifts. The Tramway Act removes ski lifts from common carrier status. The Ski Safety Act incorporates the requirements of the Tramway Act and the Safety Board’s regulations and further mandates that inconsistent provisions of the common law are abrogated.

[87] Since the Tramway Act eliminates the elevated common carrier status of ski lift operators as a basis for a higher standard of care, the applicable standard reverts to that of ordinary care. The Tramway Act delegates to the Safety Board the task of establishing reasonable standards of design for ski lifts. The Ski Safety Act warns that failure to comply with any rule or regulation promulgated by the Safety Board shall constitute negligence on the part of the operator. The standard of care owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season is, therefore, ordinary and reasonable care consistent with the rules and regulations of the Safety Board.[fn8] [88] Indeed, not only should this court accede to legislative mandate, but additionally the fixing of an elevated standard of care is without basis in fact or law once the common carrier status rationale is eliminated.

V.

[89] In the absence of statutory edict, the courts must develop the common law. However, the General Assembly retains the authority to repeal common law rights or duties. See 2-4-211, 1 C.R.S (1997). In determining whether a legislative enactment serves to supplement the common law, or to repeal it, the courts have rightfully proceeded with caution. However, the principle of statutory construction that statutes in derogation of the common law must be narrowly construed should never be invoked to defeat the plain and clear intent of the legislature. See Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237, 251-52 (Colo. 1992). Legislative intent that is clearly expressed must be given effect. See Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Keelan, 840 P.2d 1070, 1076 (Colo. 1992)(finding a clear intent by the General Assembly to change the common law rule and require damages to be set off by certain non-exempt collateral source contributions); Pigford v. People, 197 Colo. 358, 360, 593 P.2d 354, 356 (1979)(noting a clear statement of legislative intent to change the common law in order to permit admissibility of certain prior offenses in criminal prosecutions for unlawful sexual behavior).

[90] When the legislature overrules a court decision that does not involve a constitutional issue, the court must comply with the legislative direction. “It is not within the purview of this court to question the legislature’s choice of policy.” City of Montrose v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 732 P.2d 1181, 1193 (Colo. 1987)(recognizing that legislature effectively overruled City of Montrose v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 197 Colo. 119, 590 P.2d 502 (1979), with respect to the means by which a utility was permitted to surcharge municipal fees).

[91] It is my view that the Majority is, indeed, declining to recognize the appropriate exercise of legislative authority and policy-making in defining the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators. Hence, I respectfully dissent.

[92] I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in this dissent.

[fn1] At pages 15-16, the Majority includes a reference from Bagnoli, citing Lewis, to the effect that the actual common carrier status was not important. In fact, the Lewis language was merely clarifying that it was not important to distinguish between a stagecoach “prepared and maintained by the defendant for the carriage or amusement of those who pay the required fee.” Lewis, 156 Colo. at 56, 396 P.2d at 939 (emphasis in original).

[fn2] The Montana court also noted that Montana cases had rejected the analogy between a passenger of a common carrier for hire and a patron of an amusement place. See Pessl, 524 P.2d at 1106.

[fn3] There is an inference in some of the cases, including Hook, that amusement park devices are inherently dangerous and, thus, possibly deserving of a higher standard of care on that basis. This court has expressly rejected this rationale for ski area operators. See Pizza v. Wolf Creek, 711 P.2d 671, 683 (Colo. 1985)(expressly rejecting analogy comparing operating a ski area to inherently dangerous activities).

[fn4] The California court was concerned with whether a rope tow should be classified as a common carrier, and concluded that it should not. The court was not addressing the import of a statute, because at that time, California had no passenger tramway act.

[fn5] A “passenger tramway” is defined as “a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis or in cars on tracks, or suspended in the air by the use of steel cables, chains, or belts, or by ropes, and usually supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans.” 25-5-702(4), 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[fn6] I also note that emergency shutdown of a passenger tramway is justified only if the lift is shown to be an “unreasonable” hazard, 25-5-716, 11A C.R.S. (1989), lending further credence to the conclusion that the Tramway Act supplants any elevated standard of care and reestablishes an ordinary standard of reasonable care.

[fn7] In 1990, the legislature amended the Ski Safety Act to clarify the law regarding the duties and responsibilities of skiers and ski area operators and to provide additional protection for ski area operators. See Graven v. Vail Assocs., 909 P.2d 514, 517, 517 n. 3, 524 n. 4 (Colo. 1995). None of the 1990 amendments impact upon the question before us today, although they do further display the legislative intent to limit the causes of action available to skiers against ski areas.

[fn8] I do not believe that the “highest standard of care” is applicable to ski lift operators in the wake of the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act. Therefore, I do not reach the question of the interrelationship between compliance with the statutory and regulatory standards and that elevated standard of care. (Maj. op at 24-28). Further, I do not believe the question is before us as to whether evidence in addition to compliance with applicable standards and regulations should be adduced on the issue of negligence. In answering certified questions, the court should be brief and confine itself to the precise questions propounded. See In re Interrogatories of the U.S. District Court, 642 P.2d 496, 497 (Colo. 1982).


Rumpf v. Sunlight, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107946

Rumpf v. Sunlight, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107946

Sally Rumpf & Louis Rumpf, Plaintiffs, v. Sunlight, Inc., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03328-WYD-KLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

August 3, 2016, Decided

August 3, 2016, Filed

CORE TERMS: exculpatory, ski lift, rental agreement, lift tickets, ski, summary judgment, sports, recreational, snow, service provided, ski area, loading, skiing, language contained, unambiguous language, adhesion contract, unambiguously, exculpation, bargaining, equipment rental, loss of consortium, negligence claims, collectively, safely, riding, Ski Safety Act, question of law, ski resort, standard of care, moving party

COUNSEL: [*1] For Sally Rumpf, Louis Rumpf, Plaintiffs: Michael Graves Brownlee, Brownlee & Associates, LLC, Denver, CO USA.

For Sunlight, Inc., Defendant: Jacqueline Ventre Roeder, Jordan Lee Lipp, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO USA.

JUDGES: Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Wiley Y. Daniel

OPINION

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) and the response and reply to the motion. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is granted.

I have reviewed the record and the parties’ respective submissions, and I find the following facts to be undisputed, or if disputed, I resolve them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.

On December 24, 2012, Plaintiffs Sally Rumpf and her husband Louis Rumpf traveled to Glenwood Springs, Colorado to visit family and go skiing. On December 27, 2012, Plaintiffs went to Sunlight, a ski resort near Glenwood Springs. Prior to skiing, Plaintiffs rented ski equipment from Sunlight. As part of the ski rental, the Plaintiffs each executed a release, which provides in pertinent part:

I understand that the sports of skiing, snowboarding, skiboarding, [*2] snowshoeing and other sports (collectively “RECREATIONAL SNOW SPORTS”) involve inherent and other risks of INJURY and DEATH. I voluntarily agree to expressly assume all risks of injury or death that may result from these RECREATIONAL SNOW SPORTS, or which relate in any way to the use of this equipment.

* * *

I AGREE TO RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS the equipment rental facility, its employees, owners, affiliates, agents, officers, directors, and the equipment manufacturers and distributors and their successors in interest (collectively “PROVIDERS”), from all liability for injury, death, property loss and damage which results from the equipment user’s participation in the RECREATIONAL SNOW SPORTS for which the equipment is provided, or which is related in any way to the use of this equipment, including all liability which results from the NEGLIGENCE of PROVIDERS, or any other person or cause.

I further agree to defend and indemnify PROVIDERS for any loss or damage, including any that results from claims or lawsuits for personal injury, death, and property loss and damage related in any way to the use of this equipment.

This agreement is governed by the applicable law of this state or province. [*3] If any provision of this agreement is determined to be unenforceable, all other provisions shall be given full force and effect.

I THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS EQUIPMENT RENTAL & LIABILITY RELEASE AGREEMENT.

(ECF No. 39, Ex. 2) (emphasis in original).

The Plaintiffs also purchased lift tickets from Sunlight, which included the following release language:

Holder understands that he/she is responsible for using the ski area safely and for having the physical dexterity to safely load, ride and unload the lifts. Holder agrees to read and understand all signage and instructions and agrees to comply with them. Holder understands that he/she must control his/her speed and course at all times and maintain a proper lookout. Holder understands that snowmobiles, snowcats, and snowmaking may be encountered at any time. In consideration of using the premises, Holder agrees to ASSUME ALL RISKS associated with the activities and to HOLD HARMLESS the Ski Area and its representatives for all claims for injury to person or property. Holder agrees that any and all disputes between Holder and the Ski Area regarding an alleged incident shall be governed by COLORADO LAW and EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION [*4] shall be in the State or Federal Courts of the State of Colorado. …

(ECF No. 39, Ex. 4) (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff Sally Rumpf injured her shoulder when she attempted to board the Segundo chairlift at Sunlight. Plaintiffs Sally and Louis Rumpf bring this action against Defendant Sunlight alleging claims of negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-35).1

1 Plaintiff Sally Rumpf asserts the two negligence claims while Plaintiff Louis Rumpf asserts the loss of consortium claim.

The Defendant moves for summary judgment on all three claims, arguing that (1) they are barred by the exculpatory language contained in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket; (2) they fail for a lack of expert testimony; and (3) that Sally Rumpf was negligent per se under the Ski Safety Act.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the … moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 2000). “When applying this standard, the court must ‘view [*5] the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.'” Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). “‘Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'” Id. (quotation omitted). Summary judgment may be granted only where there is no doubt from the evidence, with all inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1984).

III. ANALYSIS

I first address Defendant’s argument that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ three claims for relief based on the exculpatory agreements contained in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket. It is undisputed that Plaintiff Sally Rumpf read and understood that she was bound by the release language on both the rental agreement and the lift ticket. (Sally Rumpf Dep. at 72:17-23, 97-8-17, 99:2-25, 101:11-25, 102:1-21, 106:6-25, 107:1-25, 108:1-25, and 109:1-7).2

2 The evidence reveals that Plaintiff Louis Rumpf also understood and agreed to the release language on both the [*6] rental agreement and the lift ticket.

Defendant argues that the exculpatory language is valid and enforceable under the four-factor test set forth in Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981). The determination of the sufficiency and validity of an exculpatory agreement is a question of law for the Court. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376. Exculpatory agreements, which attempt to insulate a party from liability for its own negligence, are generally recognized under Colorado law, but are construed narrowly and “closely scrutinized” to ensure that the agreement was fairly entered into and that the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Id. Additionally, the terms of exculpatory agreements must be strictly construed against the drafter. Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo. 1990). Pursuant to Jones, in determining the validity of an exculpatory agreement, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the service provided involves a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service provided; (3) whether the agreement was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376; Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 784, see Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Co., L.L.C., No. 08-cv-00052-MSK-MJW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093 at *2 (D. Colo. April 23, 2009).

Based on the Plaintiffs’ response, it does not appear that they [*7] are contesting that the exculpatory language contained in the rental agreement or the lift ticket satisfies the above-mentioned Jones criteria, arguing instead that because “this case arises from a ski lift attendant’s negligence, the exculpatory release language is inapplicable and irrelevant.” (Resp. at 1). Citing Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (1998), Plaintiffs claim that Colorado law “specifically provides negligence causes of action for skiers injured getting on and getting off ski lifts.” (Resp. at 10).

In Bayer, the plaintiff was injured when he attempted to board a ski lift at Crested Butte ski resort. After the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified various questions to the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court held that “the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators in Colorado for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection of a ski lift, is the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the lift. Neither the Tramway Act nor the Ski Safety Act preempt or otherwise supersede this standard of care, whatever the season of operation.” Id. at 80. I agree with Defendant, however, that Bayer is not controlling here because the question of the applicability [*8] of exculpatory language was not presented.

Plaintiffs further argue that the exculpatory language at issue is “only applicable to ski cases when the accident or injury occurs while the plaintiff is skiing or snowboarding on the slopes,” and not when loading the ski lift. (Resp. at 11).

I now analyze the exculpatory language at issue using the four Jones factors mentioned above. In Jones, the court instructed that for an exculpatory agreement to fail, the party seeking exculpation must be engaged in providing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity to some members of the public. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376-77. Here, the service provided is recreational and not an essential service that gives the party seeking exculpation an unfair bargaining advantage. Thus, there is no public duty that prevents enforcement of either the ski rental agreement or the exculpatory language included in Sunlight’s lift ticket.

To the extent that Plaintiffs contend that the exculpatory language at issue was “adhesive,” I note that Colorado defines an adhesion contract as “generally not bargained for, but imposed on the public for a necessary service on a take it or leave it basis.” Id. at 374. However, [*9] printed form contracts offered on a take it or leave it basis, alone, do not render the agreement an adhesion contract. Clinic Masters v. District Court, 192 Colo. 120, 556 P.2d 473 (1976). Rather, “[t]here must a showing that the parties were greatly disparate in bargaining power, that there was no opportunity for negotiation, or that [the] services could not be obtained elsewhere.” Id. In Jones, the court held that the agreement was not an adhesion contract and the party seeking exculpation did not possess a decisive bargaining advantage “because the service provided … was not an essential service.” Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78. Thus, here, I find that the exculpatory agreements were fairly entered into and are not adhesion contracts.

Finally, I examine whether the exculpatory agreements express the parties’ intent in clear and unambiguous language. Plaintiffs argue that loading or riding a ski lift is outside the scope of the exculpatory language set forth in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket.

“Interpretation of a written contract and the determination of whether a provision in the contract is ambiguous are questions of law.” Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc., 914 P.2d 909, 912 (Colo. 1996). Under Colorado law, I must examine the actual language of the agreements for legal jargon, length and complication, and any likelihood of [*10] confusion or failure of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions. See Heil Valley Ranch 784 P.2d at 785; Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004). Specific terms such as “negligence” or “breach of warranty” are not required to shield a party from liability. What matters is whether the intent of the parties to extinguish liability was clearly and unambiguously expressed. Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 785.

After carefully reviewing the relevant language set forth in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket, I find that both agreements clearly and unambiguously express the parties’ intent to release Sunlight from liability for certain claims. When Plaintiffs executed the ski rental agreement, they agreed to

RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS the equipment rental facility [Sunlight], its employees, owners, affiliates, agents, officers, directors, and the equipment manufacturers and distributors and their successors in interest (collectively “PROVIDERS”), from all liability for injury … which results from the equipment user’s participation in the RECREATIONAL SNOW SPORTS for which the equipment is provided, or which is related in any way to the use of this equipment, including all liability which results from the NEGLIGENCE of PROVIDERS, or any other person or cause.

(ECF [*11] No. 39, Ex. 2) (emphasis in original). I find that this language unambiguously encompasses the use of Sunlight’s ski lifts. Furthermore, the ski lift ticket specifically references safely loading, riding and unloading Sunlight’s ski lifts and provides that the “Holder agrees to ASSUME ALL RISKS associated with the activities and to HOLD HARMLESS the Ski Area and its representatives for all claims for injury to person or property.” (ECF No. 39, Ex. 4) (emphasis in original). I find that the language at issue is neither long nor complicated and clearly expresses the intent to bar negligence claims against Sunlight arising from the participation in recreational snow sports, which includes loading or riding ski lifts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negligence claims and loss of consortium claim are barred by the exculpatory language contained in both the ski rental agreement and the lift ticket. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.3

3 In light of my findings in this Order, I need not address Defendant’s additional, independent arguments in support of summary judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED. This [*12] case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendant against the Plaintiffs. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant is awarded its costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated: August 3, 2016

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior United States District Judge


When an organization makes rules and regulations that a subsidiary organization is supposed to obey, and then fails to follow, both organizations are liable to any plaintiff injured due to the failure to follow or enforce the organizational rules, policies, regulations or standards.

In this case, the national organization was also sued for failing to instruct and enforce the regional organization in the rules, regulations, standards or policies. If you are going to make rules, and you say the rules must be followed you have to make sure you train in the rules and that everyone follows the rules.

If you make a rule you have to enforce it if you are in charge of making rules.
Otherwise, don’t make rules!

T.K., a minor, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et. al. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005 

State: Illinois, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division

Plaintiff: T.K., a minor, by and through his natural Father and Next Friend, Timothy Killings, and Timothy Killings, individually

Defendant: Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boys and Girls Club of Decatur, Inc., and Mary K. Paulin

Plaintiff Claims: negligence and willful and wanton misconduct

Defendant Defenses: Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted filed in a Motion to dismiss

Holding: for the plaintiff

Year: 2017

This case is a federal diversity case. That means the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) were legally residents of different states, and the amount claimed by the plaintiff was greater than $75,000.00. In this case, the plaintiff was from California, and the Defendant was located in Illinois.

The plaintiff was in Illinois and attending the Decatur Boys & Girls Club, which was part of the America Boys & Girls Club. America Boys & Girls Club was based in Georgia.

America Boys & Girls Club provided policies, procedures, rules, guidelines and instructions to the Decatur Boys & Girls Clubs, and all other Boys & Girls Clubs. The Boys & Girls Clubs are required to follow the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions.

While attending the club, the plaintiff was taken to a local farm. Neither of the defendants had permission to transport the minor plaintiff to the farm. While there the plaintiff was riding on a trailer (probably a hay ride)that did not have guardrails, seats, seatbelts or other equipment designed from keeping people from falling off. (But then very few hay rides do.) The tractor and trailer were pulled onto a public highway with 15-20 children on it. While on the highway the plaintiff either jumped or fell off or might have been pushed
off sustaining injuries.

The farm trailer was not designed or intended to transport people, and the trailer lacked guardrails, seats, seatbelts, and other equipment that might prevent people from falling off it. Defendant Paulin pulled the trailer, with T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children riding on it, onto a public highway with a tractor defendant.

The issue that the trailer was not designed to be on a highway and did not have seats, seatbelts or other equipment to keep people from falling off was repeatedly brought up by the court.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and this opinion is court’s response to that motion.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

A motion to dismiss is a preliminary motion filed when the allegations in the complaint do not meet the minimum requirements to make a legally recognizable claim.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Plausibility means alleging factual content that allows a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. A plaintiff’s complaint must suggest a right to relief, “raising that possibility above a speculative level.” “The required level of factual specificity rises with the complexity of the claim.”

When reviewing a motion to dismiss the court must look at the plaintiff’s pleadings as true and any inference that must be drawn from the pleadings is done so in favor of the plaintiff.

To plead negligence under Illinois’s law the plaintiff must prove “…that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty, it breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.” In Illinois, every person owes all other persons “a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which naturally flows as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of his act.”

Whether this duty arises in a particular context depends on “the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on defendants.” Id. A child’s caretaker has a duty to protect the child from harm.

It is a legal question to be decided by the court if a legal duty exists.

…the relationship between him and America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club imposed on the two  organizations a duty of care to adequately supervise him and protect him from harm, any unreasonable risk of harm, dangerous instrumentalities, and dangerous conditions.

The plaintiffs argued the duty of care of the two organizations was breached by:

(1) negligently supervising him, (2) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him, (3) failing to warn or failing to adequately warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer, (4) failing to properly supervise the minors they placed on the trailer, and (5) failing to provide enough staff members to monitor the children they placed on the trailer.

The plaintiff’s also argued there was a greater responsibility and as such duty on the part of the America Boys & Girls Club to train the Decatur club on its rules, regulations and policies and failing to train on them was  also negligent.

T.K. further alleges that it failed to properly train Decatur Boys & Girls Club on the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions of America Boys & Girls Club, and that it failed to supervise Decatur Boys & Girls Club to ensure that the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions were followed.

In this case, the duty of care was created by the rules, regulations, policies and procedures created by the America Boys & Girls Clubs upon the Decatur Boys & Girls Club.

The plaintiff went on to argue, and since it was quoted by the court, accepted by the court that:

Defendant Paulin put him on the farm trailer even though Defendant Paulin did not have the requisite permission to  give him a ride on the trailer. Defendant Paulin towed the trailer, while T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children were on board, with a tractor onto a public highway. According to T.K., Defendant Paulin owed him a duty of care to protect him from any unreasonable risk of harm and breached that duty by (1) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him; (2)
failing to warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer and pulling the trailer onto a public highway; (3) failing to warn him that the trailer was dangerous and not reasonably safe given that the trailer had no railings, barriers, walls, or seats; and (4) creating a dangerous condition by placing him on the trailer and pulling it onto a public highway.

The court held this was enough to create a duty of care and proved a possible negligence claim.

Furthermore, of note was a statement that a statutory violation of a statute in Illinois does not create a negligence per se claim.

A violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence. . . . The violation does not constitute negligence per se, however, and therefore the defendant may prevail by showing that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.”

The court then looked at the minor plaintiff’s father claims to see if those met the requirements to prove negligence in Illinois.

To state a negligence cause of action, Mr. Killings must plead enough facts to make it plausible that he was harmed as a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of a duty they owed to him.

However, the father was not able to prove his claim because it is separate and distinct from the minor’s claim. “The fact that Defendants were responsible for T.K.’s well-being on July 17, 2015, does not mean that Defendants had any duty to Mr. Killings.”

It was T.K., not Mr. Killings, who was placed on an unsafe farm trailer and pulled onto a public road. Defendants, therefore, had a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to T.K., not Mr. Killings. Further, Mr. Killings does not claim that he was physically injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence; his only claimed injury is the money he has spent and the money he will spend in the future for T.K.’s past and future medical treatment. In short, Mr. Killings has not met the pleading requirements for a negligence claim against any Defendant.

The father also pleaded a claim for loss of aid, comfort, society and companionship of his child. However, Illinois’s law does not allow for recovery of those emotional damages unless the child’s injury is a fatality.

The claim is not one for damages stemming from the child’s physical injury, but one founded on the parents’ liability for the minor’s medical expenses under the Illinois Family Expense Act.

However, the father did have a claim for the medical expenses the father paid on behalf of his minor son for the injuries he incurred.

The plaintiff also pleaded res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur allows “proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence when the direct evidence concerning cause of injury is primarily within the knowledge and control of the defendant.” The doctrine “is meant to bridge an evidentiary gap when an injury could not have happened but for the defendant’s negligence.” Accordingly, res ipsa lo-quitur applies only when the facts “admit of the single inference that the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent.”

Res ipsa loquitur is a claim that when an incident has occurred, the control of the instrumentality was solely within the control of the defendant.

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff bringing a negligence claim based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must plead that he was injured “in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence” and that it was caused “by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control.

An example of res ipsa loquitur is a passenger in an airplane that crashes. The pilot is the defendant, and the
control of the airplane is solely with the pilot.

Indeed, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be appropriate if the instrument that caused the injury was in the defendant’s exclusive control “at a time prior to the injury and there is no change in conditions or intervening act that could reasonably have caused the event resulting in the injury.

However, the allegations of the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of res ipsa loquitur in Illinois.

Plaintiff’s final allegation discussed in the opinion was one for willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the defendants. Under Illinois’s law to establish a claim for willful and wanton conduct, the plaintiff must.

…plead facts establishing the elements of a negligence claim–duty, breach, proximate causation, and harm–and “either a deliberate intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the plaintiff.

Generally, this is the same standard to prove willful and wanton conduct in most states. Once the negligence claim is proved, then the allegations only need to support the additional acts as willful and wanton.

Therefore, to state claims for willful and wanton misconduct against Defendants, T.K. need only additionally allege either intentional or reckless willful and wanton misconduct committed by Defendants.

The court defined willful and wanton conduct.

Reckless willful and wanton misconduct is conduct committed with an utter indifference of or a conscious disregard for the safety of others. To meet this standard, the defendant “must be conscious of his conduct, and, though having no intent to injure, must be conscious, from his knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and existing conditions, that his conduct will naturally and probably result in injury.

With the allegations plead, the court found sufficient information to confirm the plaintiff going forward with willful and wanton claims. Those allegations include:

Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club placed him and 15 to 20 other minors on an unsafe farm trailer with no guardrails, sidewalls, barriers, or seats while providing inadequate supervision. T.K. further alleges that the trailer was not designed to transport people.

Putting kids on a trailer was a major issue for the court. Kids on a highway on a vehicle not created to transport people were enough to create willful and wanton conduct.

The defendant argued that the allegations that created the negligence claim were also allowed to be the same facts. No new allegations needed to be plead to support the claims for willful and wanton conduct.

Under Illinois’s law, “[t]he same acts by a defendant, if sufficiently egregious, can constitute both negligence and willful and wanton conduct.” Therefore, “one can plead the same facts in two counts, one characterizing them as negligence and the other as willful and wanton conduct, if the same facts could support both theories.

The plaintiff had pled enough facts that the court found relevant and substantial to continue with the negligence and willful and wanton claim.

So Now What?

The actual rules, regulations, procedures were not identified by the court in making its decision. However, the continuous restatement of the plaintiff’s allegations in the same order and words. However, the court specifically stated the defendants failed to follow their own rules.

If you have rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or you must abide by such you MUST follow them. There are no loop holes, exceptions or “just this one time” when dealing with rules, policies and procedures that affect safety or affect minors. If you make them, you must follow them.

If you make them, you must make sure everyone is trained on them. One of the big issues the plaintiff pleads and the court accepted was the rules made by the parent organization were not known or followed by the subsidiary organization. The parent organization when making rules is under a requirement to make sure
the rules are understood and followed according to this decision in Tennessee.

The other major issue was transporting the plaintiff away from the location where the parents thought the plaintiff would be without their permission and then transporting the plaintiff on a road without meeting the requirements of state law, seats, seat belts, etc.

When you have minors, especially minors under the age of ten, you are only acting within the realm and space permitted by the parents. The line that makes me cringe every time I hear it on the news is “If I would have known they were going to do ______________, I never would have let me kid go.” Listen and you
will realize you will hear it a lot when a minor is injured.

You need to prepare your program and your parents so that line is never spoken about you.

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com 

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law           Rec-law@recreation-law.com     James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, trailer,
willful, farm, wanton misconduct, res ipsa loquitur, negligence claims, pleaded,
cognizable, exclusive control, wanton, medical expenses, supervision, pulled,
negligence per se, public road, legal conclusions, pulling, seat, factual
allegations, right to relief, conscious disregard, indifference, speculative,
supervise, reckless, notice, owed, public highway, guidelines, transport, Guide
to Safe Scouting, GSS, Standards, Rules, Regulations, Policies, National
Organization, Boy Scouts of America, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boys
& Girls Clubs, Child Care, ACA, American Camping Association, Child Care
Facility, Licensed Child Care, Licensed Child Care Facility,


 

 


The safety precautions undertaken by the defendant in this mountain bike race were sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence in this Utah mountain bike fatality.

Tour of the Canyonlands was an 18-mile mountain bike race near Moab, Utah. Six miles of the course were on roads. The course was an open course meaning, there might be automobile traffic on the roads; the roads would not be closed to traffic.
Two plaintiffs’ struck a truck on the road, killing one of the mountain bikers.

Milne v. USA Cycling Inc., et. al., 575 F.3d 1120; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17822

State: Utah, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Plaintiff: Robert J. Milne, an individual; Timothy K. Sorrow, individually and as personal representative on behalf of his deceased son, Samuel B. Hall,

Defendant: USA Cycling Inc., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a National Off-road Bicycle Association; Cycle Cyndicate Inc.,

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death

Defendant Defenses: release, failure to state a claim to prove gross negligence

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2009

This is an attempt to recover damages by parents for the injuries they suffer when a son is hurt or dies. It probably involves as many emotional issues as it does legal ones such as how and why did my son die, why didn’t they do more to keep my son alive and possibly even some desire to protect others from the same
fate.

Two mountain bikers entered the Tour of the Canyonlands mountain bike race. Both had entered the race before and were classified as expert racers. They both signed a release prior to the race and had been told the first six miles of the course would be an open course.

An “open course” is one that is not closed to automobile traffic. Cycling on an “open course,” whether on a mountain bike or road bike, you will be encountering cars and be passed by cars. Approximately 25% of all mountain bike races are open course and a majority of road bike races in the US.

The race organizers had put up signs before the racing telling motorists that there was going to be a race. The organizers had volunteers along the route and first aid people to assist riders. They had made the effort to notify all campers on the race route about the race. The defendant driving the truck involved in the collision stated he was not notified about the race, but other people camping with him stated they had been notified.

The accident occurred when one racer attempted to pass another racer on the open part of the course while passing the automobile coming from the opposite direction. The automobile was a Ford Excursion pulling a 30’ trailer. The mountain bikers tangled, and one of the plaintiffs’s crashed into the truck.

Mr. Konitshek testified that, when he saw the oncoming bikers, he veered as far right in his lane of travel as possible, and remained on the right side of the road the entire time. He was going about 5 miles per hour when one of the bikers hit his left sideview mirror, causing it to bang into his window and shatter.

Mr. Hall had attempted to pass both himself and Mr. Milne. Mr. Byrd was immediately behind Mr. Milne, so Mr. Hall passed him first. Mr. Byrd testified that Mr. Hall passed very closely and, because of his proximity and his speed–Mr. Hall was riding about 25 miles per hour at that time–Mr. Casey could feel the wind coming off him as he passed. Then, as Mr. Hall began to pass Mr. Milne, their handlebars locked together, causing them to veer left and strike Mr. Konitshek’s camper. It is not entirely clear what happened next, but at least one racer testified that he saw the trailer run over Mr. Hall.

The release stopped the claims based on simple negligence and wrongful death of the plaintiffs. That left the claims for gross negligence. The Federal District Court (trial court) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because the plaintiff had not pled any facts to prove their claim of gross negligence.

On the plaintiff’s gross negligence claims, the court determined that the undisputed facts showed that defendants had taken a number of steps to protect the racers’ safety, and even if those steps were taken negligently, they were not grossly negligent.

There was also an issue of the plaintiff’s expert witness whom the trial court had prevented from testifying because the trial court found him to not have any experience as a mountain bike race expert.

The plaintiff’s appealed the trial court’s decision.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The appellate court had a long discussion on the courts process to dismiss cases based on motions for summary judgment. The court then started into the analysis of the facts in this case and how they applied to the law.

Gross negligence in Utah is a failure on the part of the defendant to observe even slight care. “Under Utah law, “[g]ross negligence is the failure to observe even slight care; it is carelessness or recklessness to a degree that shows utter indifference to the consequences that may result.” The plaintiff to prove the defendant was grossly negligent must proof “conduct substantially more distant from the appropriate standard of care than does ordinary negligence.”

The facts argued by the plaintiff can then only be interpreted in one way for a court to determine gross negligence cannot be proved. However, even if there are different ways of viewing the facts, gross negligence claims can be beat if there is evidence the defendant did show care or was not lacking care.

However, appeals courts have affirmed grants of summary judgment on gross negligence claims where the undisputed evidence showed that the defendants took precautionary measures and did not ignore known and obvious risks.

In this case, the court could point out numerous instances where the defendant was not careless. “… the plaintiffs have fallen short of producing evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the defendants failed to exercise “even slight care” in organizing and administering this race.

The court also looked at the knowledge of the racers and the fact they assumed the risk of the sport and injuries they encountered.

Mountain bike racing is an inherently dangerous sport, so the defendants cannot be considered grossly negligent merely because they organized a race that placed the racers at risk of injury and even death. Rather, the court must look at the specific steps the defendants took to ensure the racers’ safety in order to determine whether a jury could decide that they
were grossly negligent.

Although the issue of assumption of the risk was reviewed by the court and it obviously factored into the court’s analysis, it was not stated by the court as a reason for its decision.

The plaintiff argued the driver’s statements showed the defendant not done anything. However, the court seemed to discount the driver’s statements and found everyone else did know about the race. A defendant in the case looking not to lose a lawsuit would be more inclined to state he had not been notified.

Mr. Konitshek claimed that the organizers’ efforts to warn people in the area of the upcoming race were ineffective, because he did not know about the race until moments before the accident. Mr. Konitshek’s complaints about the sufficiency of the race organizers’ warnings do not rise to the level of creating a material issue of fact with regard to gross
negligence for two reasons. First, even if the race organizers’ warnings were imperfect, that does not negate the fact that they made rather substantial efforts to warn people, and their failure to reach every person in the area is insufficient to show gross negligence. Second, although Mr. Konitshek testified that he would have changed his plans if he had known about the race in advance, the plaintiffs presented no reason for this court to think that most drivers would change their plans to avoid a bicycle race on a 6-mile stretch of open road.

Utah requires a high disregard of safety issues to constitute gross negligence. Since automobile accidents were rare in mountain bike racing, this being the only one in the ten years of running this event, automobile accidents were not considered a serious threat to the participants. The issues were brought up by the plaintiff’s expert witness whom the court dismissed in one paragraph.

Thus, the organizers’ failure to shut down the road, mark and enforce a center line on the road, more closely monitor vehicular traffic, or more thoroughly warn other area drivers of the upcoming race cannot, as a matter of law, amount to gross negligence in light of the other safety steps taken by the organizers of this race.

Nor is gross negligence proved by 20/20 hindsight.

An examination of cases in other jurisdictions shows that courts have been reluctant to find that race organizers have been grossly negligent for failing to take every precaution that 20/20 hind-sight might counsel.

The court found the plaintiff’s had not presented evidence that could prove to a jury that the race organizers were grossly negligent and the actions of the race organizers in attending to the safety issues discounted or eliminated the plaintiff’s gross negligence claim.

We therefore agree with the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs in this case have failed to provide evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that the race organizers were grossly negligent.

The court then went on to support the trial courts exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness because the expert witness did not have sufficient experience in mountain bike racing. 

There was a concurring opinion in this case. A concurring opinion is one where a justice sitting on the appeal agrees with the outcome of the decision but for a different reason than the majority of the justices. In this case, the concurring judge felt the plaintiff’s expert witness statements were enough to beat the gross negligence claim.

In this case, he would have excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony, but would have used his testimony where he stated the defendants exercised some degree of care for the participants as a reason to dismiss the gross negligence claim.

The dismissal of the claims of the plaintiff by the trial court was upheld.

So Now What?

I am seeing case after case where gross negligence claims are made to defeat a release. Twenty years ago, few cases pleaded a claim for gross negligence, and now every case does. As such part of your preparation for any activity, trip or program is to make sure you do not do anything that could support a gross negligence claim.

Gross negligence claims rarely proved at trial, extremely rare. As such their main reason they are pled is to get passed the motion for summary judgment, which increases the cost of continuing the case substantially. Therefore, any settlement offer will be increased significantly. A gross negligence claim hanging over the head of a defendant is also a real threat as some insurance companies will not pay to defend such a claim judgment based on gross negligence are not dischargeable in Bankruptcy.

Planning what safety precautions you should undertake should first start with understanding what your industry does. Know how other races are put on and what precaution to take is the first step. Then looking at your course, your participants or your ability to respond, you should modify the safety program to meet those differences. 

Finally, have a release and fully inform every one of the risks. Most importantly inform them of all risks, maybe even repeatedly, that are different from everyone else or that substantially increase the risk. Assumption of the Risk is the second most-used defense to negligence claims in recreation cases after a release. Always use both.

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

 Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

 Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com 

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation
Law          
Rec-law@recreation-law.com     James H. Moss

 

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, summary
judgment, standard of care, organizer, mountain, bike, racer, traffic, gross
negligence, racing, expert testimony, negligence claims, quotation, affirming,
grossly negligent, warn, rider, state law, center line, safety precautions,
center-line, organizing, mile, federal law, negligence cases, bicycle race,
burden of proof, precaution, encounter, bikers, expert’s opinion, Mountain Bike,
Mountain Bike Racing, Tour of the Canyonlands, Closed Course,