Allstate Ins. Co. v. Harmon
| Decision Date | 21 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17–23203–CIV–MORENO |
| Citation | 314 F.Supp.3d 1336 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Marlene D. HARMON; Steven Bruce Waldman; and Anabel Alberni, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tatiana Sanchez, deceased, Defendants. |
David Bryan Shelton, Candy Lea Messersmith, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff.
Andrew Needle, Needle & Ellenberg, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendants.
Marlene D. Harmon, Miami Beach, FL, pro se.
Steven Bruce Waldman, Miami Beach, FL, pro se.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case stems from a fatal auto accident involving a rental car being driven by someone other than the person who rented the vehicle. The question is whether the renter's auto policy extends coverage for the accident. In cases involving rental cars the policy extends coverage to policyholders. The policy at issue does not actually use the term policyholder, but instead categorizes people as "listed drivers" and "named insureds." The driver of the rental car is a "listed driver" under this policy and not a "named insured." Allstate argues that "named insured" is synonymous with policyholder, thereby excluding the accident from coverage. Defendant argues that the policy is ambiguous and the driver of the rental car, as a "listed driver," should be considered a policyholder. The Court agrees with Allstate and grants summary judgment in its favor.
This case arises out of a tragic automobile accident that occurred on January 20, 2016, resulting in the death of Tatiana Sanchez and injuries to Jose E. Gomez. Earlier that evening, Ms. Sanchez's automobile was struck by another vehicle owned by Mr. Gomez, a passenger in that vehicle. Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Gomez exited their respective vehicles after the accident to inspect the damage, at which point Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Gomez were struck by Defendant Steven Bruce Waldman. Mr. Waldman was driving a 2016 Hyundai Sante Fe that had been rented by Defendant Marlene D. Harmon. Ms. Harmon had rented the Hyundai from Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC and allegedly permitted Mr. Waldman to drive it. Ms. Harmon and Mr. Waldman are not related and, at the time of the accident, were not married.1
Ms. Sanchez's estate subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against, amongst others, Defendants Waldman and Harmon in the Circuit Court in and for Miami–Dade County, Florida (Case No. 2017–009968–CA–01), seeking damages. Allstate is defending Mr. Waldman in that lawsuit pursuant to a reservation of rights. Ms. Harmon has not yet been served, but Allstate anticipates that she will be. Likewise, Mr. Gomez has not yet filed a related personal injury claim, but has notified Allstate that he intends to do so. As such, to avoid incurring unnecessary litigation costs, Allstate seeks a declaration from this Court as to whether liability coverage exists for the wrongful death and personal injury claims arising from the underlying accident. This Court declares that it does not.
Summary judgment is authorized where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment may not simply rest upon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings; the non-moving party must establish the essential elements of its case on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-movant must present more than a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant's position. A jury must be able reasonably to find for the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
At issue is whether the subject auto policy extends coverage to the auto accident involving Mr. Waldman. In the instant action, neither Ms. Harmon nor Mr. Waldman has appeared to contest Allstate's request for declaration, and both have had defaults entered against them. Instead, Ms. Sanchez's estate, a third-party claimant, is challenging Allstate's coverage position.
Allstate issued the contested auto policy for the policy period January 13, 2016 to July 13, 2016. The policy carried liability coverage subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions in the policy. At the time of the subject accident, the policy listed a 2001 Lexus Rx300 on the Policy Declarations as the covered vehicle.
The insuring obligation and the liability coverage provisions of the subject policy are found at Part I—Automobile Liability Insurance Bodily Injury—Coverage AA Property Damages—Coverage BB, which state, in relevant part:
Allstate will pay for all damages an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury or property damage.
The policy defines "Allstate," "we," "us," or "our" as "the company shown on the Policy Declarations;" and "you" or "your" as "the policyholder named on the Policy Declarations and that policy holder's resident spouse."
The policy defines "insured person" to mean:
The policy also lists specific exclusions that Allstate will not cover, including:
10. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of a non-owned auto, substitute auto or non-owned utility auto, being driven by someone other than you or a resident relative.
Read together, it is clear, and the parties do not contest, that the policy will not cover any accidents arising out of the use of a non-owned (i.e., rented) vehicle being driven by someone other than the policyholder listed on the Policy Declarations ("you") or a resident relative.
The Policy Declarations referenced in the definitions are divided into two columns. In the right-hand column, there is a space to identify the "Named Insured(s)." In the left-hand column, there is a space to identify "Listed drivers on your policy." The word "policyholder," as used in the definitions, does not appear anywhere on the page.
The parties disagree as to whether the absence of the word "policyholder" creates an ambiguity about the extent of coverage. Allstate contends that it does not, and that the Policy Declarations clearly indicate that Marlene D. Harmon is the sole policyholder, excluding Mr. Waldman and the underlying accident from coverage. Ms. Sanchez's estate argues that because the term "policyholder" is not explicitly used, and because Steven Waldman is listed as a driver on the policy on the declarations page, it was the intent to include him as an insured and an ambiguity exists that should be resolved in favor of finding that Mr. Waldman is a policyholder.
Under Florida law, an insurance policy is treated and construed like a contract. Reuter v. Lancet Indem. Risk Retention Grp. Inc. , 262 F.Supp.3d 1341, 1348 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2017) (citation omitted). "[T]he construction of [that policy], including the extent of coverage, is a question of law for the court," and the court should construe it "in accordance with the plain language of the policy." Id. (citing Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. , 463 So.2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985) ; Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 913 So.2d 528, 532 (Fla. 2005) ). The court may not "rewrite contracts, add meaning that is not present, or otherwise reach results contrary to the intentions of the parties." Id. (citing Intervest Constr. of Jax, Inc. v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co. , 133 So.3d 494, 497 (Fla. 2014) ). "If a policy provision is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is considered ambiguous and must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer as drafter of the contract." Victoria Select Ins. Co. v. Vrchota Corp. , 805 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citation omitted). Notably, exclusionary clauses, like the one at issue here, are construed more strictly than coverage clauses. Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson , 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000). However, the general doctrine that policy exceptions and exclusions are to be restrictively read is of course tempered by the rule of reason and the principle that even insurance policies must be given practical, sensible interpretations in accordance with the natural meaning of the words employed. Reuter , 262 F.Supp.3d at 1348 (citing Simmons v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , 496 So.2d 243, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ).
To avoid exclusion under the policy, the estate must show that the "policyholder listed on the Policy Declarations" is Steven Waldman. In the subject policy, the terms "you" and "your" are defined as "the policyholder named on the Policy Declarations." The plain and ordinary meaning of the term "policyholder" means the one who holds (i.e. owns) a policy. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 1818 (10th ed. 2014)("[s]omeone who owns an insurance policy, regardless of whether that person is the insured party"); Evanston Insurance Company v. Haven South Beach, LLC , 152 F.Supp.3d 1370, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- 3637 Corp. v. City of Miami
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Esqueda
...314 F.Supp.3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2018); Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Paolino, No. 14-61934-CIV, 2015 WL 2070335 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015). In Harmon, a driver other than the named insured “resident relative” struck two individuals with a vehicle that had been rented to the named insured. 314......