Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. D.B.
| Decision Date | 06 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:16 CV 1403 CDP,4:16 CV 1403 CDP |
| Parties | AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. D.B., Personal Representative of the Estate of M.R., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
T.M. was involved in an abusive sexual relationship with M.R., from which she suffered emotional and physical injuries. M.R. is now deceased. T.M. seeks to recover under M.R.'s homeowners insurance for her emotional injuries. M.R.'s insurer, Amica Mutual Insurance Company, seeks a declaration that its policy of insurance does not apply to any of T.M.'s injuries. T.M. and Amica have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the claims. Because the undisputed evidence shows that the relevant insurance policy does not provide coverage for T.M.'s emotional injuries, I will grant summary judgment to Amica on that claim. I lack jurisdiction to determine whether the policy covers T.M.'s other injuries.
T.M. is a mentally disabled adult woman who is represented in this action by her legal guardian, D.P.1 The estate of M.R. is represented by D.B.2
Between January and March 2012, T.M. had several sexual encounters with M.R. Some of these encounters involved third persons, and some were photographed and video recorded and later displayed to others without T.M.'s consent. T.M. suffered physical and emotional injuries from this abusive sexual relationship.
During this period, M.R.'s residence was insured with Amica through a homeowners insurance policy that provided coverage for bodily injury to third parties caused by an accident occurring at the residence, with such coverage subject to various exclusions. Amica also offered optional coverage to its insureds extending liability coverage for personal injury to others, such as for invasion of privacy.
In August 2016, T.M. issued a demand letter to Amica to settle all claims for harms to her caused by M.R. The letter detailed the emotional injuries suffered by T.M. and also referred to an instance of physical injury that occurred during the relationship. Amica concluded there was no coverage under the policy and filed this declaratory judgment action.
In this litigation, T.M. contends that M.R.'s policy included the optional coverage extending personal injury liability and that she is therefore entitled to recover under the policy for the emotional injury she sustained as a result of M.R.'s invasion of her privacy. Amica argues that this optional coverage was not a part of M.R.'s policy of insurance and that therefore T.M. cannot recover under the policy for her emotional injuries. Amica also argues that policy exclusions preclude T.M.'s recovery for bodily injuries arising from M.R.'s conduct, to which T.M. responds that she seeks no such recovery.
Summary judgment must be granted when the pleadings and proffer of evidence demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). I must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accord it the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 (2007).
Initially, the moving party must demonstrate the absence of an issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a motion is properly made and supported, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the allegations in its pleadings or in general denials of the movant's assertions, but must instead proffer admissible evidencethat demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902, 910 (8th Cir. 2010); Howard v. Columbia Pub. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 797, 800-01 (8th Cir. 2004).
If the nonmoving party fails to properly address an assertion of fact made by the movant, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit me to consider the fact undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The Local Rules of this Court, however, require it. Under Local Rule 4.01(E), moving parties must include a statement of uncontroverted material facts with their memorandum, with citations to the record if the fact(s) are established by the record.
Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.
E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E) (emphasis added).
As an initial matter, I deem admitted all facts outlined by Amica in its Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (ECF #42) that are not specifically controverted by T.M. Of the 175 separately numbered paragraphs proffered by Amica as undisputed facts, T.M. responded to 151 of them with the statement"neither admits nor denies." (See ECF #53.) Since these statements are not specifically controverted, they are deemed admitted. In response to other paragraphs, T.M. simply "denies" Amica's factual averments without citation to any material in the record or any explanation showing the presence of a genuine dispute as to those facts as required by Local Rule 4.01(E) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "A district court is not required to speculate on which portion of the record the nonmoving party relies, nor is it obligated to wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts that might support the nonmoving party's claim." Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Libel v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1032 (8th Cir. 2007) () (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the factual averments that T.M. simply "denies" with nothing more are likewise deemed admitted.
Against this backdrop, I now turn to the evidence before the Court on the motions.
T.M. was injured by the actions of M.R. that occurred from January 2012 through March 2012. Amica admits that M.R.'s conduct invaded T.M.'s privacy and that T.M. suffered emotional damages.
M.R. and his wife L.R. were insured with Amica from May 2006 to October 2016. During that time, Amica issued twelve homeowners insurance policies to them. Policy number 620724-20KA (the Policy) was in effect from July 6, 2011, to July 6, 2012, and covered the period of time relevant to this action. Under the Policy, Amica agreed to pay sums if a claim for damages was made against the insured "because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which [] coverage applies[.]" (Amica Exh. 8, ECF #44-6 at 23.) The Policy defined "bodily injury" as "bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services and death that results." An "occurrence" was defined as an "accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period, in" bodily injury or property damage. Under the Policy's exclusions, there was no coverage for, inter alia, bodily injury or property damage which was "expected or intended by an insured"; arose "out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse"; or arose "out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession by any person of a Controlled Substance as defined by the Federal Food and Drug Law at 21 U.S.C.A. Sections 811 and 812." (Id. at 8-9, 24-25.)
Amica provides its insureds with a Homeowners Insurance Information Digest and advises the insureds that the Digest summarizes policy coverages and limitations and highlights other available coverages. The Digest describes sixteen"optional coverages" that are available for insureds to purchase that are not included in the basic policy. Among these optional coverages is coverage for "Personal Injury Liability," which "extends Liability coverage to protect you for personal injury to others, such as false arrest, libel, slander or invasion of privacy." This coverage is available for additional premium.
For each new or renewed policy issued to M.R. and L.R., Amica provided a policy packet to them that contained the respective policy. From the first policy issued in May 2006 to the Policy at issue here, Amica provided seven packets to M.R. and L.R. Four of these packets included the Information Digest. The other three did not. The packet containing the Policy at issue in this action included the Digest.3
In their application for insurance preceding the Policy, M.R. and L.R. elected the following optional coverages, which are among the sixteen "optional coverages" listed in the Information Digest: Additional Amount of Insurance for Dwelling, Personal Property Replacement Cost, Scheduled Personal Property, and Water Back Up and Sump Overflow. All of these endorsements and their corresponding endorsement numbers are listed on the Policy's declarations page, and a written endorsement for each of these coverages is attached to the Policy, each bearing the statement An additional premium of $41.00 is listed on the declarations page for "optional coverages," which corresponds with Amica's charge to M.R. and L.R. for the optional Water / Sump endorsement.
Over the course of M.R. and L.R.'s ten-year...
To continue reading
Request your trial