## Facts

- Evel Knievel and Snake River Canyon Enterprises, Inc. organized a public stunt event near Twin Falls, Idaho, drawing roughly 10,000–15,000 spectators.
- As a condition of governmental approvals, Knievel and Snake River were required to obtain substantial public liability insurance naming various entities as additional insureds.
- Insurance was procured through an insurance broker after negotiations with Knievel’s attorneys.
- Foremost Insurance Company issued a comprehensive general liability policy to Knievel and Snake River that included an endorsement excluding coverage for damages arising out of “riot, civil commotion or mob action.”
- During the period surrounding the event, groups of individuals damaged or destroyed the property of concessionaires, including Harold Putzier and Bob Crandall.
- Putzier and Crandall sued Knievel and Snake River seeking recovery for their property losses.
- Foremost filed a declaratory judgment action asserting the exclusion barred coverage and eliminated any duty to defend or indemnify.
- The insureds and claimants argued the exclusion was not part of the bargain, was inadequately disclosed, or should not apply to the losses.

## Issues

1. Whether the policy’s “riot, civil commotion or mob action” exclusion barred coverage for concessionaires’ property-damage claims arising from destructive acts by groups at the event.
2. Whether pre-issuance negotiations and communications could defeat or limit enforcement of an unambiguous exclusion contained in the final written policy absent grounds for reformation.
3. Whether the conduct causing the property damage fell within the ordinary meaning of “riot,” “civil commotion,” or “mob action” under Idaho insurance-contract interpretation rules.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the declaratory judgment for Foremost.
- The court held the riot/civil commotion/mob action exclusion was a valid and enforceable part of the policy.
- The court concluded the concessionaires’ alleged losses were caused by conduct within the exclusion’s ordinary meaning.
- Foremost therefore had no duty to defend or indemnify Knievel or Snake River against the concessionaires’ claims.

## Legal Principles

- An insurance policy, as issued and delivered, is generally treated as the integrated expression of the parties’ agreement; prior negotiations do not expand coverage beyond the written contract absent a basis for reformation.
- Exclusions are construed strictly against the insurer only when ambiguous; clear exclusionary language is enforced as written.
- Undefined terms such as “riot,” “civil commotion,” and “mob action” may be given their ordinary, commonly accepted meaning, and destructive disorderly conduct by groups can fall within those terms.
- Alleged expectations of broader protection do not override an unambiguous exclusion without proof of fraud, mutual mistake, or other recognized grounds to rewrite the contract.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the liability policy’s unambiguous riot/civil commotion/mob action exclusion and held that group-caused property destruction at the event fell within that exclusion, eliminating the insurer’s duties to defend and indemnify the insureds for the concessionaires’ claims.


Foremost Ins. Co. v. Putzier, 100 Idaho 883, 606 P.2d 987 (Idaho 1980)