CAAP-20-0000239, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

KELLY WAIAU, Individually and Guardian Prochein Ami of MINOR BOY 1, RAQUEL BALGA, ROMAINE DEBBIE CASTRO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of AMOS KEN AGLIAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. HAWAIʻI EMPLOYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAIʻI, LTD., GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY, NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, ROE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS 1-10, and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliʻiōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants KELLY WAIAU, Individually and Guardian Prochein Ami of MINOR BOY 1, RAQUEL BALGA, ROMAINE DEBBIE CASTRO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of AMOS KEN AGLIAM:
     Laurent J. Remillard, Jr., Don V. Huynh, Rechelle A.M. Barbour, Robert P. Marx, and Ronald G. Self

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAIʻI, LTD.: 
     Stephen K. Roy and Lance S. Au

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY INSURANCE COMPANY:
     Richard B. Miller, David R. Harada-Stone, and Ashley R. Shibuya

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY
     Gary G. Grimmer

COURT: Leonard, Acting C.J., Wadsworth, and Nakasone, JJ.

Brief Description:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Kelly Waiau, individually and as Guardian Prochein Ami of Minor Boy 1, Raquel Balga, and Romaine Debbie Castro, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Amos Ken Agliam (Waiau Parties) challenge two summary judgment orders that were entered against them, and in favor of three insurance companies, and then reduced to an appealable judgment. With these orders and the judgment, all of the Waiau Parties’ claims against these three insurers – Defendant-Appellee General Star Indemnity Company (General Star), Defendant-Appellee First Insurance Company of Hawaii, Ltd. (First Insurance), and Defendant-Appellee North American Capacity Insurance Company (NACIC) – were dismissed with prejudice.

The Waiau Parties’ claims arose, in the first instance, from the work-related death of Amos K. Agliam (Agliam), an employee of C&F Trucking. C&F Trucking is not an entity, but a “dba” and a trade name registered by Frank Lawrence (Lawrence). A claim was made on behalf of Agliam for workers’ compensation benefits and benefits were received by Agliam’s estate. The Waiau Parties sued C&F Trucking, Lawrence, and others, alleging that Agliam’s death was caused by the willful and wanton misconduct of his co-employees, including Lawrence. Lawrence et al. tendered to these three insurers, as well as his worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurer, and they all denied any duty to defend or provide coverage for liability. That litigation ended with a judgment in favor of the Waiau Parties and an assignment of the defendants’ claims against the four insurance companies. The assignment underlies this action.


On appeal, the Waiau Parties argue that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment based on the employee and fellow employee exclusions contained in First Insurance’s Business Auto policy, which were incorporated into the policies of General Star and NACIC. The Waiau Parties argue that these exclusions are invalid and unenforceable on various grounds, including based on the severability-of-interests clause contained in the First Insurance Business Auto Policy and the requirements of the Hawaii Motor Vehicle Insurance Law. This court requested supplemental briefing on issues related to a CONFLICT OF PROVISIONS term in the First Insurance Business Auto Policy that states the Motor Vehicle Insurance Law “shall take precedence” over policy provisions or endorsements if there is a conflict between them.