Corey Christy was the sole proprietor of K & D Oilfield Supply. In 2007, Christy purchased a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy from Travelers Indemnity Company of America. The CGL policy named K & D as the insured and listed it as “individual,” meaning sole proprietorship. The CGL policy covered a truck used for the business and included general coverage for incidents involving underinsured motorists. In addition to the CGL policy, Christy purchased auto insurance for his personal vehicle. Following the purchase of the CGL and personal insurance policies, Christy incorporated K & D on an attorney’s advice.
Each year, Christy’s insurance agent would send a cover letter asking Christy to confirm the accuracy of the policy before renewing it. The insurance agent would also meet with Christy during the annual renewal proceeding. Christy did not inform the insurance agent about K & D’s incorporation either in response to the cover letter or at the annual meeting.
In 2010, Christy was hit by an underinsured motorist while riding a bicycle. Christy was paid $25,000 by the car driver’s insurance and $100,000 by his personal policy. Christy also sought to receive a payout from K & D’s CGL policy, but the claim was denied. Following Travelers’ denial, Christy sued, arguing that, because the CGL policy listed K & D as the insured as an “individual,” it referred to Christy because K & D was simply a name Christy was using to do business as a sole proprietor. Travelers contended the incorporation of K & D meant that K & D, Inc., was insured and not K & D. Therefore Christy was no longer covered by the CGL policy.
The district court asserted that Christy had a duty to inform Travelers of the change in business type and Christy’s failure to do so constituted a material misrepresentation of fact. Because of those reasons, the district court reformed the CGL policy to show K & D, Inc. as the named insured and ruled in favor of Travelers. Christy appealed.In the trial court, Travelers pointed to a provision in the CGL policy stating, “This policy contains all the agreements between you and us concerning the insurance afforded,” and argued that the express language of the provision created a duty for Christy to inform Travelers of the change in business type.

What do you think of this argument?

How do you think the appeals court ruled on this portion?

Assuming that Christy did not have a duty to inform Travlers of the incorporation of K & D, do you agree that listing K & D as an “individual” in the CGL policy meant that the underinsured motorist insurance applies to him? Why or why not? [Christy v.

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO. OF AMERICA, 810 F. 3d 1220

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The argument that Travelers Indemnity Company of America makes in court is that the express language of the provision in the Corey Christys policy states that it is agreed between the company and the ... View the full answer