YOUNGMAN v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Dana YOUNGMAN, et al., Appellants, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 123,728

Decided: September 17, 2021

Before Atcheson P.J., Bruns and Isherwood, JJ.

Jon R. Clayton, of Overland Park, for appellant. Bruce A Moothart, of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On cross motions for summary judgment, the Thomas County District Court held that the policy Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America issued the plaintiffs for a house they owned and rented out did not cover an act of vandalism because the property had been vacant for an extended period of time. The parties agree the material facts are undisputed and the coverage issue turns on several interlocking provisions of the policy. We apply the same standards as the district court in reviewing summary judgment and owe no particular deference to the district court's analysis of the policy language. See Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 58 Kan. App. 2d 501, 505, 472 P.3d 110 (2020).

Having reviewed the record, the district court's written order granting summary judgment to Safeco, and the parties' appellate briefs, we find no substantive error in the order and conclude it adequately sets forth the controlling facts and legal principles explaining the decision. We, therefore, affirm under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(5) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network