Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff - Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Brash Tygr, LLC, et al., Defendants - Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Submitted February 11, 2014
Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.
Hudson Specialty Insurance Company (13-1688, 13-1742), Plaintiff - Appellant: Dale Lee Beckerman, Deacy & Deacy, Kansas City, MO.
For Brash Tygr, LLC, Tyler Roush, George Roush, Sharon Roush, Roush Investments, Inc., doing business as: Sonic Drive-In Nash & Franciskato Two, Jeff Ports (13-1688, 13-1742), Defendants - Appellees: Brian S. Franciskato, Dean Nash, Nash & Franciskato, Kansas City, MO.
For Brandon Roush (13-1688, 13-1742), Defendant - Appellee: Brian S. Franciskato, Nash & Franciskato, Kansas City, MO.
For Lloyd Miller, Nancy Miller (13-1688, 13-1742), Defendants - Appellees: Michael W. Blanton, Blanton Law Firm, Evergreen, CO; Lawrence Benjamin Mook, Davis George Mook Llc, Kansas City, MO.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
Hudson Specialty Insurance Company issued a Commercial Lines Master Policy to Sonic Insurance Advisory Trust providing commercial general liability and commercial property insurance to Sonic Restaurants, Inc. and to Sonic franchisees who were enrolled members of the Trust. One named insured was Brash Tygr, LLC, which owned and operated the Sonic Drive-In restaurant in Carrollton, Missouri. Lloyd and Nancy Miller sued Brash Tygr and its principals in Missouri
state court to recover damages for substantial personal injuries suffered when a car driven by Tyler Roush, a Managing Member of Brash Tygr, struck Lloyd Miller, a pedestrian. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, Hudson filed this declaratory judgment action against the parties to the state court action seeking a declaration that the Hired and Non-Owned Auto Liability endorsement to the policy's Commercial General Liability Coverage Form provides no coverage to any defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Hudson appeals the district court's ruling granting summary judgment to defendants on the coverage issue. We reverse that ruling. Defendants cross appeal the court's earlier ruling that Hudson is not collaterally estopped to contest coverage by the state court judgment in favor of the Millers in the underlying action, to which Hudson was not a party. We affirm that ruling.
Hudson's Hired and Non-Owned Auto endorsement provided, ...