The Kansas Supreme Court reversed an appeals court, finding that a high school soccer player, who suffered a catastrophic injury while riding in the back of a pickup truck to a soccer match, is covered under catastrophic insurance purchased by the Kansas State High School Activities Association (KSHSAA).
The high court’s majority decision also reversed a Wyandotte County district court, which had initially dismissed the suit against the Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and KCK Unified School District 500.
But the justices concluded there was coverage under the policy language because the travel in a private vehicle was “covered,” i.e. was “authorized” and “subject to reimbursement.”
The accident that injured plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez occurred on August 29, 2006, while he was traveling to his first match of the Sumner Academy soccer season. Rodriguez was riding in the bed of a pickup truck driven by fellow student and teammate Mike Hitze when the pickup collided with another car. Rodriguez was thrown from the pickup and sustained the injury that now requires him to have around-the-clock care.
Rodriguez’ mother, Graciela, initially filed the lawsuit on his behalf against the school district, Hitze, and the driver of the car that had collided with Hitze’s truck.
During the course of the lawsuit, the plaintiff learned that the KSHSAA, which administers various extracurricular activities in the state, had purchased a Mutual of Omaha policy to cover injuries sustained by participants during events the Association sanctioned, as well as during certain types of travel to and from such events. The insurance policy covered students “participating in interscholastic competition or activities under the jurisdiction of the KSHSAA including school-supervised practice, tryouts, pre and postgame-related activities including award banquets and covered travel as defined under the policy.”
However, the district court judge ruled for the insurance company, basing the decision “on his belief that the school was prohibited by state law and district policies from authorizing travel by private vehicle when no adult was present,” wrote the majority. “And, in his view, the travel would have qualified as subject to reimbursement only if the driver had a contract with the school district to pay for gasoline; there was no evidence that Hitze had such a contract. The district judge therefore held that Mutual of Omaha should be dismissed as a defendant in the case.”
Rodriguez appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court found that the travel arrangements, while “authorized,” “did not qualify as subject to reimbursement, and thus there was no coverage under the Mutual of Omaha policy.”
Rodriguez appealed again, this time successfully.
“We also see nothing in the school policies or administrative guidelines that would prohibit reimbursement of Hitze if he had chosen to seek it,” wrote the majority. “As already discussed, (Tom Petz, executive director of human resource services for the school district) fully reviewed the distinction between school policies and administrative guidelines. He also made clear that neither the policies nor the guidelines prohibited reimbursement in the situation before us. We have carefully reviewed the language of all of the policies and administrative guidelines in the record on appeal and agree with his assessment. Most of the policies and guidelines contained are irrelevant to transportation for extracurricular activities. They instead govern daily travel to and from school, transportation of special education students, field trips, and curricular activities. They are silent about a prohibition of reimbursement in the situation before us. Any contrary interpretation by the parties, their counsel, the district judge, or the Court of Appeals is simply incorrect, adding material and meaning to these provisions that does not exist.”
Jesus Rodriguez, by and through His Next Friend and Natural Mother, Graciela Rodriguez, v. Unified School District NO. 500, et al.; S. Ct. Kan.; No. 107,174, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 365; 6/12/15
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Stephen R. McAllister, of counsel, of Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, P.A., of Lawrence, argued the cause, Henri J. Watson and Russell S. Dameron, of Watson & Dameron, LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri. (for appellee) Robert J. Hoffman, of Bryan Cave LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Lauren A. Horsman, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs.
