Garrison Property and Casualty v. Horton

── Garrison Property and Casualty v. Horton ── Case No.: 25-1113 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 25, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1113 Document: 60 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 25, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs Counterclaim Defendants - Appellees, v. Nos. 25-1113 & 25-1122 (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-03187-NYW-CYC) NICHOLAS S. HORTON; TAISHARA (D. Colo.) ABEYTA, Defendants Counterclaim Plaintiffs - Appellants, _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MATHESON, Circuit Judge, and HEIL,** Chief District Judge. _________________________________ Appellees USAA Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) and Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Garrison”) (together, “Appellees”) * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. The Honorable John F. Heil, Chief District Judge, United States District Court, ** Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.  Appellate Case: 25-1113 Document: 60 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 2 brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights and obligations under their respective insurance contracts as it relates to coverage for a motorcycle accident. The motorcycle was not listed on either policy’s declarations page. While Appellees argued that the policies clearly excluded coverage under Exclusion B.1, Appellants Nicholas Horton and Taishara Abeyta (together, “Appellants”) argued that exceptions to Exclusions B.2 and B.3 conflicted with Exclusion B.1, thereby creating an ambiguity that must be resolved in favor of coverage under controlling Colorado law. Appellants also asserted bad faith counterclaims against Appellees. In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Appellees, holding that coverage was plainly excluded under the policies and, therefore, Appellants’ counterclaims must also fail. Appellants now appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2018, Appellant Nicholas Horton (“Appellant Horton”) was operating a motorcycle with Appellant Taishara Abeyta (“Appellant Abeyta”) as his passenger when he was involved in a collision that severely injured them both. Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 166. The motorcycle Appellant Horton was operating was owned by his father, Daniel Horton, and was insured through a Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”) policy owned by Daniel Horton. Id. At the time of the collision, Daniel Horton also owned an automobile insurance policy through USAA and Appellant Horton owned an automobile insurance policy through Garrison. Aplt. App. Vol. 3 at 381, 428. Neither the USAA policy nor the Garrison policy included the motorcycle on the declarations page. 2  Appellate Case: 25-1113 Document: 60