Court Summaries
| Publication year | 2010 |
| Pages | 40 |
Vol. 33, No. 4, 40. Court Summaries
Issue: August, 2010
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. W. N. McMurry Construction Co. 2010 WY 57 No S-08-0163 May 4, 2010
This is the second time this case has been to the Wyoming Su--L preme Court. In 2005, McMurry Construction entered into a contract to build two buildings at the Wyoming State Fairgrounds in Douglas, Wyoming. The project required insurance totaling approximately $5 million. B.W. Insurance contacted Ohio Casualty to insure the project. Ohio Casualty sought amounts from McMurry Construction regarding the total amount sought in insurance. Between Ohio Casualty and McMurry Construction there was a mis-communication and the project was only insured for $1 million. One of the buildings collapsed on the project, and the loss exceeded the policy limit of $1 million. McMurry Construction sought to have the contract for insurance reformed on the basis that the parties intended that the policy of insurance was to cover a $5 million loss. The trial court let the issue go to trial and ruled in favor of McMurry Construction and reformed the policy of insurance to cover the $5 million project. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company appealed and the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court held that reformation is an equitable remedy that applies, whether or not the policy holder reads the policy of insurance, when: (1) a mistake occurs in drafting of the instrument; and (2) the mistake was common to both parties. The quintessential example given by the Wyoming Supreme Court is when the parties intend to insure a home, but place the wrong address in the policy of insurance. In that case, reformation would be available as a remedy. Here, the Court held that Ohio Casualty Insurance Company did not intend to insure the project for $5 million. Their intention was to insure the project for $1 million. So the element of there being a common mistake is lacking and reformation cannot exist as a remedy.
Donna Marie Rodriguez v. State of Wyoming 2010 WY 61 No. S-09-0179 May 14, 2010
The issue in this case was whether Ms. Rodriguez was denied her right to counsel at her probation revocation hearing. Ms. Rodriguez was placed on felony probation for accessory to an escape. She violated the terms of that probation and appeared before the trial judge. At her initial appearance, where she was unrepresented, she admitted to the allegations of the petition and was sentenced under her suspended term. A little while later, the State requested a sentencing hearing and counsel was appointed for Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez moved to withdraw her admissions to the alleged violations on the basis that she did not waive her right to counsel. That request was denied. She appealed and the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed.
Under W.R.Cr.P. 39, when a person is arrested on a violation of probation, he/she is to be brought before the district court judge, advised of the allegations, and also told of his/her right to counsel. At her initial hearing, the trial court did ask her whether she understood that she had a right to counsel but did not specifically ask whether she was willing to give up that right. The court then took admissions from her. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that this was not sufficient advisement; thus, not a sufficient waiver of her right to counsel. The case was reversed and remanded.
Recommended Termination of Glenda R. Reynolds v. West Park Hospital District 2010 WY 69 No. S-09-0201 May 27, 2010
This case involves whether, under the particular facts, additional -L consideration is needed for a later adopted employee handbook to change the employment relationship from "for cause" to "at will."
Glenda R. Reynolds was an employee of West Park Hospital District. She started working with West Park Hospital District in 1984. At that time, West Park Hospital District had an employment handbook that allowed termination based on "for cause" justifications. In 2003, Ms. Reynolds separated from employment with West Park Hospital District and took a severance package releasing West Park Hospital District from any and all claims. That year is critical. So too is the year 2002, because in 2002, West Park Hospital District adopted a new employee manual converting the employment for persons hired after 2002 to "at will"...
To continue reading
Request your trial