Menard, Inc. v. Farm Bureau P&C Ins. Co., No. 23-1702 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Cynthia Bowen purchased an insurance policy from Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Farm Bureau") for her pick-up truck. She was injured when an employee of Menard, Inc. ("Menards") accidentally dropped a large board on her while helping load her truck at a store. Bowen sued Menards for damages, alleging negligence. Menards then filed an action against Farm Bureau seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to a defense and indemnification from Farm Bureau under Bowen's insurance policy. The district court ruled in favor of Menards, finding that Menards and its employee were covered insureds under the policy and that no policy exclusion applied.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the policy's "Intrafamily Immunity" exclusion applied to the case. This exclusion stated that there was no coverage for any bodily injury to any "insured," which, in this case, included both Bowen and Menards. Therefore, the policy provided no liability coverage for Bowen's claim against Menards, another insured party. The court rejected the district court's reasoning that the term "intrafamily" limited the application of the exclusion, finding that the plain meaning of the operative policy provision prevailed. The court also rejected Menards' argument that Farm Bureau was estopped from asserting this defense to coverage. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that Farm Bureau was not obligated to provide defense and indemnification for Menards in connection with the lawsuit brought by Bowen.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Melloy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. A Menards customer was injured while a Menard's employee was loading a lumber purchase onto the customer's truck, and she sued to recover damages for her injuries; Menards filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the customer's motor vehicle liability policy provided coverage; the district court found Menards and its employee were covered insured and that no exclusion precluded coverage; on appeal, the insurer argues the "intrafamily immunity" exclusion applied and precluded coverage. Held: the district court erred in refusing to apply the exclusion; under the policy, Menards qualified as a named insured because its employee was helping the customer load her truck with her consent; since the customer was also a named insured in her role as owner of the truck, the intrafamily immunity exclusion provided there is no coverage for her injury; in other words, the policy plainly provides there is no liability for claims of one insured, the customer, against another insured, Menards. Reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.