Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that plaintiff-insurance company had no duty to defend four underlying actions alleging negligence and strict liability arising out of individuals sustaining personal injuries after consuming alcoholic beverages manufactured by defendant-insured, where subject policy contained Liquor Liability Exclusion that precluded coverage for bodily injury by reason of causing or contributing to intoxication of any person. Language of exclusion applied to each underlying lawsuit, where each case concerned allegations that injuries were related to drinking defendant’s alcoholic beverage, and Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that its act of adding stimulants to its alcoholic beverage constituted separate act that placed its conduct outside instant exclusion and triggered plaintiff‘s duty to defend underlying actions.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in breach of contract action alleging that defendant’s method of calculating its cost of insurance was contrary to terms of policy, which stated that applicable rate would be “based on the insured’s sex, issue age, policy year and payment class,” where defendant used additional factors not mentioned in policy when calculating rate. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that contract language required that defendant base rate exclusively on sex, issue age, policy year and payment class and agreed with defendant that its rate did not violate terms of policy, where stated factors in policy made up significant portion of rate calculation, and where instant rate did not exceed guaranteed ceiling rate in policy.