APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford County; the Hon. SAM
HARROD, III, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE CRAVEN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
This action was brought to recover the value of a horse under the provisions of a homeowner insurance policy issued to the plaintiffs, Lou and Patricia Benassi, by the defendant, Cincinnati Insurance Company. After hearing arguments on the motions for summary judgment submitted by both parties, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $4,000, plus costs. Unfortunately, no opinion was written nor were any reasons stated in support of the judgment entered by Judge Harrod. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs since the insurance policy covered only the accidental death of the horse from perils enumerated in the policy rather than death from any cause.
The facts of this case as set forth in the stipulated statement of facts filed with the motions for summary judgment reveal that during August 1977, the plaintiffs purchased a homeowner policy from the defendant. This policy was issued on October 1, 1977, and part of the coverage under that policy provided insurance coverage in the amount of $4,000 for a quarter horse by the name of Denver Mint, owned by the plaintiffs.
On February 18, 1978, Denver Mint shattered the second phalanx of his left hind leg while engaged in cutting cattle during a training session. The horse was taken immediately to a veterinarian, and, after examination, the veterinarian stated that he could not repair the broken bone and he suggested that the horse be taken to an equine specialist. The veterinarian placed the left hind leg of the horse in a standing cast so the horse could be transported.
On February 20, 1978, the horse was examined by an equine orthopedic specialist. It was determined that the leg could not be repaired and that the horse had to be destroyed. The following day the horse was shot and it died as the result of the gunshot wound. A veterinarian was present and supervised the shooting.
The plaintiffs thereafter filed a claim pursuant to the policy. The defendant refused to pay and this action ensued.
The homeowner policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs provides the following coverage for livestock:
B. Livestock against death or destruction directly resulting from or made necessary by:
1. Fire, Lightning, Windstorm, Hail, Explosion, Smoke, Aircraft, Riot, Civil Commotion or Vehicles;
2. Theft, Flood, Earthquake, or Accident to Transporting Conveyances;
3. Collapse of Buildings or other structures, Drowning, Artificial Electricity, Shooting or Attack by dogs or wild beasts."
The plaintiffs urge that the terms of the policy are not ambiguous and that the plain meaning provides coverage for the shooting of the horse. The plaintiffs note that the ...