By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE federal court has granted an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit involving a restaurant sued for negligence over the death of a student in 2004.
U.S. District Court for NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson in an order on Friday granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Dongbu Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dongbu filed the motion against Dong Guk Corp.
The insurance firm was represented by Thomas E. Clifford while Dong Guk’s lawyer was G. Anthony Long.
Munson, in granting the motion, said Dong Guk’s “wholesale violation of the clear, unambiguous exclusion provisions of the insurance policy relieved Dongbu Insurance Company Ltd. of any duty to defend because there can be no finding of liability covered by the insurance policy.”
He said Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in part that judgment “shall be rendered forthwith 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 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Dong Guk operates a restaurant/bar in Chalan Kanoa which serves liquor.
At the time in question, the restaurant served liquor to Jung Soon Lee and her friends past the 2 a.m. closing time mandated by CNMI law.
Dong Guk and Dongbu. were later sued by Jung Soon Lee’s uncle Sung Young Lee.
Jung Soon Lee died when the vehicle driven by her drunk companion slammed into a tree.
The federal court dismissed the complaint against Dong Guk on Friday and issued a separate order for the motion of Dongbu against Dong Guk.
Dong Guk argued that even accepting the facts of the complaint as true, Dongbu’s motion for summary judgment should be denied because the language of the contract of insurance should be construed broadly enough to find that Dongbu might still be liable for any damages imposed on Dong Guk.
But Munson stated that the insurance contract does not apply to bodily injury for which Dong Guk may be held liable “by reason of causing or contributing to the intoxication of any person by furnishing alcoholic beverages to a person under the influence of alcohol or by serving alcohol in violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation relating to the sale of use of alcoholic beverages.”
Dong Guk argued that Dongbu is not only obligated to defend Dong Guk but also that coverage exists under the policy because the exclusions are limited to claims or damages for bodily injury and does not extend to damages “arising out of bodily injuries.”
According to Munson, since the economic loss “arose out of the death, the damages recoverable in a wrongful death action by decedent’s heirs, if any, arise out of bodily injury” and are covered by the policy.
“Because a decision as to the latter contention is dispositive, the court need not consider Dongbu’s duty to defend. Summary judgment is appropriate where the terms of a contract are not ambiguous and where extrinsic evidence is not necessary to interpret it,”Munson said.
He added, “The uncontroverted facts show that Dong Guk’s actions squarely fell within the alcohol exclusions of the policy. The court will not engage in linguistic contortions to avoid the plain language of the insurance policy. As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context, the fact that terms are not defined in an insurance policy does not make them ambiguous, such terms are to be accorded their plain and obvious meaning.”