Plante v. Columbia Paints
North Dakota Supreme Court
494 N.W.2d 140 (1992)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Parnel Plante and Mark Sandness, two painters (plaintiffs), North Dakota residents, were seriously injured in an explosion that occurred in a house in North Dakota where they were working and using paint manufactured by Columbia Paint Company (Columbia) (defendant), an Idaho corporation headquartered in Washington and Montana with retail operations in Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, and North Dakota. Columbia obtained an insurance policy from Hartford, a Connecticut corporation, through an insurance agent in Washington. The policy limited recovery to $1 million for each occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The policy was delivered to Columbia in Washington and was intended to cover Columbia’s retail operations in Washington and North Dakota as well as other states. Plante and his wife and daughter filed a declaratory-judgment action to determine coverage under the policy, and Sandness and his family intervened. Washington law would treat the explosion as one occurrence with a $1 million cap for all claims while North Dakota law would treat the multiple causes of action as multiple occurrences with a $1 million cap for each cause of action. The trial court applied North Dakota law and granted summary judgment for the painters. Hartford appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
