Greenbank v. Great American Assurance Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-insured’s action, alleging that defendant breached terms of policy on plaintiff’s show horse by withholding consent for horse’s authorized humane destruction, and that defendant’s continued care and control over plaintiff’s horse long after policy had terminated constituted conversion and theft. Plaintiff’s contention that defendant breached policy by failing to provide mortality coverage was not supported by record, where: (1) although horse had serious foot injury, horse did not die, and no veterinarian rendered opinion that horse’s immediate destruction was imperative for humane reasons, as required under terms of policy; and (2) nothing in policy required defendant to agree to euthanize horse. Also, plaintiff could not establish conversion claim, where plaintiff failed to demand return of horse after defendant took control of horse to give treatment for horse’s leg. Moreover, plaintiff could not establish theft claim, where there was no evidence for jury to determine that defendant knowingly or intentionally exercised unauthorized control over horse, especially where plaintiff’s counsel conceded that defendant could keep horse.