Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Owen
Filed March 26, 2008
Cite as 06-35677

Decision on Summary Judgment Reversed

Owen Trucking (OT) is a corporation whose sole shareholders were Arlene and her ex-husband, Curtis Owen (”Curtis”). It was in the business of hauling talc from talc mines.

Arlene Owen is the former vice-president, secretary, and director of OT. Her working schedule is for two to four hours per week doing office work.

Progressive Casualty Insurance (Progressive) issued a commercial auto insurance policy to OT for twelve of its vehicles. The policy declarations bore the name “BENNETT OWENTRUCKING I.” as insured.  It also listed ten drivers, not including Arlene. Arlene’s name does not show on the declarations pages or anywhere else in the policy. The policy did not mention anything regarding coverage for officers, directors, owners, or employees.

When Arlene met an accident, she made a claim on Progressive for underinsured motorist and medical benefits payments under OT’s policy.

Progressive filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana for a declaratory judgment contending that Arlene was not covered under OT’s policy. The parties each filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court favors Arlene’s motion and denied Progressive’s.

The court held that “it was impossible to discern who was covered under the underinsured motorist and medical benefits provisions.” The omission of Arlene’s name was a violation of public policy because a corporation cannot suffer bodily injuries and incur medical bills. Hence, the Court is had “no other choice” but to rewrite the policy to include Arlene as a named insured.

Progressive appealed the decision by making the following argument:

• The district court improperly rewrote an insurance policy issued to OT to include Arlene as a named insured.


• The district court erred in denying Progressive’s summary judgment motion because Arlene was not occupying an insured auto at the time of her accident.


• The district court erred in denying Progressive’s summary judgment motion because Arlene was not occupying an insured auto at the time of her accident.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the arguments of Progressive. It reversed the judgment of the district court by saying that:

• Where insurer issued a commercial auto insurance policy to a company that was silent regarding coverage for officers, directors, owners, or employees, and the policy defined an insured as "any person occupying your insured auto," that provision indicated that the policy only provided "uniquely human benefits...to some person or persons," not that additional humans could be named as insured.”