F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 8 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-3353
HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. NO. 02-CV-2316-CM)
Kathleen A. Hardee (Matthew A. Culp with her on the briefs), Shughart Thomson
& Kilroy, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kurt D. Maahs (James C. Morrow and Matthew J. Hempy with him on the brief)
Morrow, Willnauer & Klosterman, L.L.C., Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendant-
Appellee.
Before McCONNELL , HOLLOWAY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Freightquote.com, Inc. appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company. The district court ruled that Hartford did not have a duty to
defend or indemnify Freightquote in connection with a lawsuit filed against
Freightquote for tortious interference with contractual and business relations.
Freightquote.com, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 316 F. Supp. 2d 937 (D.
Kan. 2003). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Underlying Suit with Gateway
Freightquote is a Lenexa, Kansas internet shipping broker that uses its
website, freightquote.com, to act as intermediary between shippers and carriers.
At its website, customers can obtain quotes on shipping services and schedule
shipments from a variety of freight carriers with whom Freightquote contracts. In
addition to its own website, Freightquote created other internet websites to market
its services. Personalshipper.com was a third-party shipper that marketed
Freightquote’s services through a page created by Freightquote. Although
personalshipper.com had its own logo and was made to look like its own business,
it essentially operated as an agent for Freightquote. Thus, customers that
scheduled shipments through personalshipper.com were in fact provided shipping
services through Freightquote.
-2-
From approximately May through October 2000, Gateway Transportation
Services, Inc., a freight brokerage company incorporated in Florida, scheduled
numerous shipments for itself and others through the personalshipper.com
website. According to Freightquote, Gateway and its customers never paid for
these shipping services despite Freightquote’s repeated demands for payment.
Freightquote alleges that it had to pay the various freight carriers on Gateway’s
behalf.
Freightquote sought legal advice from an attorney in Boston, Massachusetts
regarding Gateway’s refusal to pay. The attorney advised Freightquote that it had
a legal right to send a demand letter to Gateway’s customers, and the attorney
assisted in drafting such a letter. The letter stated:
Dear [Gateway Customer],
You have been accessing freight brokerage services through Gateway
Transportation Services, Inc., in Ft. Lauderdale Florida. Gateway has been
obtaining these freight services through freightquote.com. . . . While
Gateway Transportation has been invoicing you for these freight charges;
they have NEVER paid freightquote.com or any of our carriers for your
shipments. We would like to do the following with you:
1. Please do not pay Gateway Transportation for any of the freight
services arranged through freightquote.com. . . . If you have paid
Gateway Transportation for these freight services, please attempt to
cancel payment with your bank.
2. We will invoice you directly for all shipments made through Gateway
since May 2000. Please pay freightquote.com directly and we will
pay the carrier for the services provided.
3. You are legally liable for any charges incurred through Gateway
Transportation that have not been paid to the carriers via
-3-
freightquote.com. We would like to assist you in establishing an
account directly with freightquote.com. Please call [phone number]
to speak to one of our New Business Sales Representatives.
4. We have notified the Florida State’s Attorneys office and the FBI of
Gateway Transportation’s practices. Please see the recent article in
the Miami Herald about some of the principals at Gateway
Transportation.
The attached article, titled “19 from crime family indicted,” discusses the
indictment of nineteen individuals for money laundering, loan sharking, extortion,
and sports gambling. Gateway itself is not mentioned in the article, although it
identifies a Gateway officer as one of the “crime family” members indicted for
racketeering.
Between October 31 and November 1, 2000, Freightquote sent the letter
and Miami Herald article to numerous Gateway customers. In response to the
letter, on November 13, 2000, Gateway filed a complaint against Freightquote in
Miami-Dade County (the Gateway suit). Gateway alleged that the letter and
Miami Herald article tortiously interfered with its contractual and business
relations. Freightquote counterclaimed for unpaid services. It then turned to its
insurer, Hartford, for a defense to the lawsuit.
B. The Hartford Liability Insurance Policy
At the time of the Gateway suit, Hartford insured Freightquote through a
general commercial liability policy. The policy provided coverage for bodily
-4-
injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury. The policy states in
relevant part:
We will pay on behalf of the insured those sums that the insured becomes
legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury,” “property
damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance
applies. . . . However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against
any “suit” seeking damages . . . to which this insurance does not apply.
(emphasis added).
The policy goes on to define “personal and advertising injury” to include,
among other things, “[o]ral or written publication of material that slanders or
libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods,
products or services.” Finally, the policy specifically excludes coverage for
“[p]ersonal and advertising injury arising out of an offense committed by, at the
direction of or with the consent or acquiescence of the insured with the
expectation of inflicting personal and advertising injury” (the intentional act
exclusion clause). According to Freightquote, Hartford had a duty to defend
Gateway’s claim for tortious interference under the policy’s “personal and
advertising injury” provision.
C. Hartford’s Denial of Coverage
Shortly after receiving Gateway’s complaint, Hartford undertook an
investigation to determine whether the Gateway suit fell within the policy’s
intentional act exclusion clause. On November 29, 2000, Hartford sent a letter to
-5-
Freightquote stating that an investigation was underway. Counsel for
Freightquote replied on December 18, 2000, reaffirming Freightquote’s demand
that Hartford defend the Gateway suit and indemnify against any losses. In the
letter, Freightquote’s counsel cited our circuit’s decision in Bankwest v. Fidelity
& Deposit Co. of Maryland, 63 F.3d 974 (10th Cir. 1995), which held under
Kansas law that a general liability insurance policy covers a claim for intentional
interference with contractual and business relations. Freightquote’s counsel
stated in the letter that this decision entitled Freightquote to coverage in the
Gateway suit.
Nevertheless, Hartford ultimately concluded that it did not have a duty to
defend the Gateway suit. In a letter dated February 6, 2001, Hartford told
Freightquote that “none of the allegations in the Complaint deals with damages
that would qualify for coverage under the [policy] and its definitions.”
Specifically, Hartford stated that even if Gateway’s allegations qualified as
“personal and advertising injury,” the policy excludes coverage due to the
intentional nature of Freightquote’s acts.
In May of 2001, Freightquote’s counsel sent a letter for the purpose of
putting Hartford on notice that settlement discussions were underway in the
Gateway suit and requesting Hartford’s participation in those discussions.
Predictably, Hartford refused. Freightquote eventually settled the Gateway suit at
-6-
a total cost to Freightquote of approximately $150,000, and Hartford refused to
indemnify against the loss. In July 2003, Freightquote filed suit against Hartford
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
D. The District Court’s Order
In its lawsuit against Hartford, Freightquote alleged that Hartford breached
its contractual duties to defend Freightquote and indemnify against losses in the
Gateway suit. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district
court denied Freightquote’s motion for summary judgment and granted Hartford’s
motion. In sum, the district court found that the policy’s intentional act exclusion
clause applied to Gateway’s tortious interference claim. Thus, because coverage
did not exist under the policy, Hartford did not have a duty to defend the Gateway
suit or indemnify Freightquote’s losses. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment to determine whether
any genuine issues of material fact were in dispute and, if not, whether the district
court correctly applied the substantive law at issue. Viernow v. Euripides Dev.
Corp., 157 F.3d 785, 792 (10th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate “if
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
-7-
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In applying this standard, we view the evidence and
draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th
Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence
is such that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Cudjoe v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 297 F.3d 1058, 1062 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation
and quotation omitted).
Furthermore, because this case arises under our diversity jurisdiction,
Kansas law applies. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). “The obligation
of responsible appellate review and the principles of a cooperative judicial
federalism underlying Erie require that courts of appeals review the state-law
determinations of district courts de novo.” Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499
U.S. 225, 239 (1991).
B. The Duty to Defend and Indemnify
The issue in this case is whether the district court erred in finding that
Hartford had no duty to defend and indemnify Freightquote against a claim of
tortious interference with contractual and business relations under the insurance
contract. We first address the law regarding an insurer’s duty to defend.
1. The Duty to Defend
-8-
Under Kansas law, an insurer’s duty to defend arises when there is a
“potential of liability” under the policy. Spruill Motors, Inc. v. Universal
Underwriters Ins. Co., 512 P.2d 403, 407 (Kan. 1973). “The insurer determines if
there is a potential of liability under the policy by examining the allegations in the
complaint and considering any facts brought to its attention or which it could
reasonably discover.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finney, 770 P.2d 460,
466 (Kan. 1989); see also American Motorists Ins. Co. v. General Host Corp.,
946 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1991), reh’g granted and opinion modified, 946
F.2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1991). If, based on a good-faith analysis of all the
information the insurer knew or could have reasonably ascertained, the insurer
determines that there is a possibility of coverage, the insurer must defend the
underlying lawsuit—even if the possibility of coverage is remote. Spivey v.
Safeco Ins. Co., 865 P.2d 182, 188 (Kan. 1993); Spruill Motors, 512 P.2d at 407.
An insurer does not, however, have a duty to defend where the underlying
lawsuit falls “wholly outside any coverage obligations assumed in the policy or
when the insurer would have no liability if plaintiff secured a judgment against
the insured.” Spruill Motors, 512 P.2d at 406. “Where a petition alleges an act
that is clearly not covered, for example, that the defendant acted willfully and
intentionally, there would be no potential of liability under the policy for
intentional acts.” Spivey, 865 P.2d at 188; see also S. Cent. Kan. Health Ins.
-9-
Group v. Harden & Co. Ins. Servs., 97 P.3d 1031, 1035 (Kan. 2004) (“When there
is no coverage under the insurance policy, there is no duty to defend.”).
Additionally, in Kansas, intentional act exclusion clauses such as the one at
issue here “reflect the public policy prohibiting coverage for intentional and
malicious acts.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Falley, 926 P.2d 664, 668
(Kan. Ct. App. 1997) (citations omitted); see also Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Williams, 804 P.2d 1374, 1382 (Kan. 1991) (“Excluding coverage for an
intentional injury arises from the belief that an individual should not be exempt
from the financial consequences of his own intentional injury to another.”).
Numerous cases hold that liability insurance coverage does not extend to
intentional acts. See, e.g., Spivey, 865 P.2d 182; Bell v. Tilton, 674 P.2d 468
(Kan. 1983); State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Gerrity, 968 P.2d 270 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
Here, Freightquote argues that the policy’s intentional act exclusion clause
does not apply because Freightquote did not commit an intentional act. Aplt. Op.
Br. at 19. According to Freightquote, although it intentionally mailed the letter
and Miami Herald article to Gateway’s customers, it did not intend to tortiously
interfere with Gateway’s contractual and business relations. In this regard,
Freightquote correctly points out that Kansas law distinguishes between an
intended injury and an unintended injury resulting from an intentional act. See,
e.g., Spruill Motors, 512 P.2d at 408 (noting that “[a]n intentional act may result
-10-
in an unintended injury” and holding that the insurer had a duty to defend because
the insured did not intend to injure the third party). The policy at issue in this
case in fact recognizes this distinction by only excluding coverage for “expected
or intended injur[ies].” Aplt. App. at 66.
Nevertheless, Freightquote’s analysis goes only part way. The intentional
act exclusion clause does not require Hartford to show that Freightquote acted
with the specific intent to tortiously interfere with Gateway’s business. See
Harris v. Richards, 867 P.2d 325, 328 (Kan. 1994). Nor is Hartford required to
show that Freightquote acted with the belief that its actions were “substantially
certain” to cause injury. See Falley, 926 P.2d at 667. Instead, “[w]here an
intentional act results in injuries which are a natural and probable result of the
act, the injuries are intentional.” Spivey, 865 P.2d at 188; see also, e.g., Harris,
867 P.2d at 328 (“We do not follow the specific intent rule. Rather, we have
adopted the natural and probable consequences test.”) (citations omitted). Thus,
the question for us is not whether Freightquote specifically intended to tortiously
interfere with Gateway’s contractual and business relations, but whether harm to
Gateway’s contractual and business relations was the natural and probable
consequence of Freightquote’s actions.
We agree with the district court that the natural and probable consequence
of Freightquote’s actions was to interfere with Gateway’s business. Gateway’s
-11-
underlying complaint alleges in part that “Freightquote intended to harm
Gateway’s business and its continued relationships with its customers.” Aplt.
App. at 88. An insurer, however, may not make a coverage decision based solely
on the plaintiff’s allegations against the insured. Instead, it must consider all the
information that could be reasonably ascertained regarding the insured’s conduct.
Spivey, 865 P.2d at 188.
Here, in addition to the allegations in the complaint, as part of its coverage
evaluation, Hartford also had before it the letter and Miami Herald article. The
letter insinuated or specifically stated that
(1) Gateway was an untrustworthy and dishonest business,
(2) customers should not pay Gateway for services already arranged
through freightquote.com and should have their banks cancel payment if possible,
(3) customers in fact would be legally liable for amounts incurred through
freightquote.com,
(4) Freightquote “would like to assist you in establishing an account
directly with freightquote.com” so that the customers could bypass Gateway, and
(5) principals at Gateway were involved in criminal activity.
The newspaper article accompanying the letter cemented the point that Gateway’s
principals were alleged by federal prosecutors to be involved in racketeering.
-12-
Based on the above, the only conclusion a reasonable trier of fact could
reach is that the natural and probable consequence of Freightquote’s actions was
to intentionally interfere with Gateway’s contractual and business relations. Nor
do we see any genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary
judgment. The language of the letter denigrates and discredits Gateway’s
services, affirmatively solicits Gateway’s customers, threatens legal liability in
the event that Gateway’s customers do not directly pay Freightquote, and
(together with the article) implies that Gateway is operated by crooks.
Freightquote’s actions thus fall squarely within the policy’s intentional act
exclusion clause, and, accordingly, Hartford did not have a duty to defend the
Gateway suit.
The fact that Freightquote first sought legal advice before mailing the letter
does not alter our conclusion. Although an attorney advised Freightquote that a
letter could legally be sent to Gateway’s customers, Freightquote’s CEO was
largely responsible for its drafting and content. Furthermore, while acting on
advice of counsel is a relevant fact going to Freightquote’s intent, we find that
this fact alone does not overcome the only inference from the totality of
circumstances: Freightquote intended to strong arm Gateway and interfere with
Gateway’s contractual and business relationships with its customers. There is no
plausible claim here that Freightquote acted in good faith.
-13-
In short, Freightquote’s conduct can only be understood as deliberate
interference with Gateway’s customer relations and is, therefore, excluded from
insurance coverage.
2. The Duty to Indemnify
Freightquote also argues that Hartford breached its duty to indemnify. The
duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend. American Motorists Ins.,
946 F.2d at 1488–89. Although the duty to defend is determined by the
allegations of the underlying complaint and any facts that the insurer
independently knew or could have reasonably ascertained, the duty to indemnify
is determined by the facts as they are established at trial or as they are finally
determined by some other means, such as settlement. Id. at 1489 (citations
omitted); see also Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 71
P.3d 1097, 1126 (Kan. 2003) (“[T]he duty to indemnify is determined by the facts
as they are established at trial or as they are finally determined by some other
means.”) (citations and quotation omitted).
Freightquote has not included the settlement in the record on appeal. We
thus cannot say whether Hartford possibly had a duty to indemnify based on the
agreed terms of the settlement in the Gateway suit. Without the settlement’s
terms, we have no reason to believe that the facts finally agreed to in settlement
vary from those alleged in the complaint. Nor do we believe that the parties in
-14-
this case could create a factual question of coverage through stipulations in
settlement documents.
Since we have already concluded that Hartford had no duty to defend
Freightquote, we also readily find that Hartford had no duty to indemnify
Freightquote for any amounts incurred or paid in connection with the Gateway
settlement. 1 See American Motorists, 946 F.2d at 1489.
C. The Bankwest Decision
Finally, Freightquote argues that our decision in Bankwest v. Fidelity &
Deposit Co. of Maryland, 63 F.3d 974 (10th Cir. 1995) (applying Kansas law),
mandates a finding that Hartford had a duty to defend. We disagree for the
simple reason that Bankwest does not address the applicability of intentional act
exclusion clauses, which is the core issue in this case. Bankwest is, therefore,
largely beside the point.
1
Although Freightquote alleges that the total cost of settlement was “in
excess of $150,000,” Aplt. Op. Br. at 8, it apparently paid nothing in damages.
Instead, the settlement terms (as best we can discern from the oblique references
in the record) merely require that both parties drop their claims and bear their
own costs. Of the approximately $150,000 claimed by Freightquote, $146,682 is
the amount of unpaid shipping services allegedly owed by Gateway to
Freightquote. Under the policy, however, Hartford only agreed to pay “those
sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” Aplt. App. at
63 (emphasis added). Thus, even if Freightquote were entitled to indemnification,
Hartford would not be required to indemnify against the overwhelming majority
of the losses alleged by Freightquote.
-15-
In Bankwest, the insured (Bankwest) held a fourth deed of trust on some
property owned by the plaintiffs and located in Vail, Colorado. Several other
banks also held security interests in the plaintiffs’ Vail property. Bankwest’s
president sent letters to these other banks, falsely saying that they were estopped
from advancing additional funds to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed a claim
against Bankwest for intentional interference with business and contractual
relations, which was eventually settled. Id. at 976. Bankwest sought to recover
from its insurer the amount it paid to defend the underlying lawsuit. The insurer,
however, refused to defend, stating that the policy did not cover intentional
interference claims. Id. at 977.
Nothing in the Bankwest opinion suggests that the policy at issue contained
an intentional act exclusion clause similar to the one in this case. The policy
provided coverage for bodily injury, property damage, and personal injury, and
defined “personal injury” in part as “the publication or utterance of a libel or
slander or of other defamatory or disparaging material.” Id. at 977. The insurer
argued that it had no duty to defend the underlying lawsuit because a claim for
intentional interference with business or contractual relations was not listed in the
policy as a covered claim. Id. Bankwest, on the other hand, argued that the
policy’s reference to “the publication or utterance of . . . defamatory or
disparaging material” was broad enough to include a claim for intentional
-16-
interference. Id. We agreed with Bankwest, holding that the policy was “broad
enough to include certain claims for intentional interference with contract,” id. at
980, and that the insurer therefore had a duty to defend the underlying lawsuit.
Id. at 981. The parties did not brief, nor did this court decide, the applicability of
an intentional act exclusion clause.
Insurance coverage cases are contract cases—driven by the terms and
conditions of the insurance policies themselves. Our holding in Bankwest should
not be interpreted to mean that under Kansas law all claims for tortious
interference with contractual or business relations are ipso facto covered claims
that give rise to an insurer’s duty to defend. Instead, Bankwest stands for the
limited proposition that a policy provision defining “personal injury” as “the
publication of . . . defamatory or disparaging material” is broad enough to
encompass certain tortious interference claims. Id. at 980. In the present case,
however, the parties do not dispute that Hartford’s policy, which defines
“personal and advertising injury” to include “publication of material that . . .
disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services,” is broad
enough to include a tortious interference claim. Indeed, under Bankwest, there is
no argument but that a claim for tortious interference falls within the policy’s
scope of potential coverage. Rather, the issue raised by the parties in this case
moves beyond Bankwest; namely, whether the policy’s intentional act exclusion
-17-
vitiates Hartford’s duty to defend an otherwise covered claim. Bankwest simply
does not speak to this issue. 2
If, as urged by Freightquote, we were to find that Bankwest compels a duty
to defend in this case, we would necessarily need to ignore the express language
of the policy’s intentional act exclusion clause. Not only would we be turning our
backs on Kansas’s stated public policy against providing coverage for intentional
acts, see Falley, 926 P.2d at 668, we would also contravene the principle that
“[i]nsurance policies are to be enforced as written so long as the terms do not
conflict with pertinent statutes or public policy.” Steinle v. Knowles, 961 P.2d
1228, 1232 (Kan. 1998). There is no such conflict here.
III. CONCLUSION
The natural and probable consequence of Freightquote’s actions was to
disparage Gateway and interfere with its contractual and business relations, and
no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded otherwise. We therefore hold
2
We also reject Freightquote’s argument that upholding the district court’s
grant of summary judgment will essentially overrule and nullify Bankwest.
Freightquote’s argument rests on the false premise that all claims for tortious
interference are covered claims under Bankwest. As we have explained, however,
whether a claim is covered does not depend on the allegations in the complaint
alone, but rather on an analysis of all the available facts. Indeed, as in Bankwest,
in some circumstances an insurer may have a duty to defend against an intentional
interference claim. For instance, where the allegations in the complaint and all
other facts indicate that the insured did not act with the intent to injure or that
injury was not a natural and probable consequence, the insurer would have a duty
to defend.
-18-
that Hartford did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the Gateway suit.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Hartford.
-19-