Armstrong v. Martin Cadillac, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2015-CA-001892-MR,2015-CA-001892-MR |
| Parties | CHARLES ARMSTRONG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG ARMSTRONG APPELLANT v. MARTIN CADILLAC, INC., D/B/A MARTIN DODGE JEEP CHRYSLER, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, THE ESTATE OF JONATHAN ELMORE, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NEWS PUBLISHING, LLC, AND ABC BOWLING GREEN, LLC APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
Jonathan Elmore delivered newspapers to earn money. He had a contract with News Publishing, LLC ("News Publishing") to deliver the Daily News. On April 5, 2014, Elmore and Craig Armstrong were in the same vehicle delivering newspapers. Elmore was driving his 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier when it appears he ran a stop sign and pulled into the path of another vehicle that had the right of way. The collision killed Elmore and Armstrong. Armstrong's father, as administrator of the estate, filed wrongful death claims against multiple defendants, including the current appellees.
Following discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of multiple defendants. On December 2, 2015, and prior to trial, the remaining defendants reached an agreement, and the trial court entered an Order and Judgment as follows:
A timely notice of appeal was filed. Armstrong now appeals the orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. As Appellant raises nine issues on appeal, the facts and analysis of each issue are presented separately below.
All issues stem from orders granting summary judgment. A trial court considering the summary judgment motion must view "[t]he record . . . in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor." Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991) (citing Dossett v. New York Mining and Mfg. Co., 451 S.W.2d 843 (Ky. 1970)). "Appellate review of a summary judgment involves only legal questions and a determination of whether a disputed material issue of fact exists." Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc'y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Ky. 2013) (footnote omitted). "So we operate under a de novo standard of review with no need to defer to the trial court's decision." Id.
Under that review, summary judgment should only be granted "when, as a matter of law, it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor and against the movant." Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 483 (quoting Paintsville Hosp. Co. v. Rose, 683 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Ky. 1985)). "The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and then the burden shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to present 'at least some affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.'" Lewis v. B&R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001) (quoting Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 482). "'[I]mpossible' is used in a practical sense, not in an absolute sense." Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Ky. 1992).
The first six issues raised by Appellant concern the ownership of the 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier that Elmore was driving when the fatal collision occurred.1 Principally, Appellant claims Martin Cadillac, Inc. ("Martin Cadillac") is the owner of the automobile. He claims Elmore, who had purchased the automobile from DeWalt Auto Sales ("DeWalt Auto") weeks before the accident, was not legally the vehicle's owner because Martin Cadillac still maintained the vehicle's title.
Needless to say, the facts surrounding the Cavalier's ownership are not entirely straightforward. As the trial court noted, "The Cavalier Elmore was driving had a lengthy history of transfers." Its ownership is important as each owner possessed insurance from a different company. Ascertaining the owner determines which insurance company is potentially liable for damages. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Provence, 395 S.W.3d 476, 484 (Ky. App. 2012) ().
The Cavalier was first acquired as a trade-in by Martin Cadillac on November 30, 2013. It valued the car at $800 on the trade in. Martin Cadillac has two insurance policies through Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers"): a general liability policy with a $1,000,000 limit; and an umbrella policy with a $20,000,000 limit.
A week later, on December 6, 2013, Martin Cadillac placed the Cavalier in an auction, where it sold for $600 to DeWalt Auto. The auction was conducted by Auction Broadcasting Company ("ABC"). ABC's representative sold the automobile for cash to Terrez DeWalt ("DeWalt") of DeWalt Auto. DeWalt was not required to prove he had liability insurance prior to the purchase. Instead, ABC's representative stated that Kentucky law requires dealers to maintain liability insurance. DeWalt later stated that he did have liability insurance at the time that he purchased the vehicle. Martin Cadillac never obtained written proof that DeWalt had insurance on the vehicle. In fact, it was stipulated at Joseph Henderson's deposition that Martin Cadillac "did not receive, ask for or get proof of insurance on who would ultimately purchase that vehicle through the auction house[.]" Depo., p. 34.
DeWalt Auto then took possession of the Cavalier. It sold the vehicle to Elmore for cash on January 20, 2014. DeWalt Auto required Elmore to produce written proof of insurance before Elmore took possession of the vehicle. Elmore complied. Elmore obtained a policy through Nationwide that had a $100,000 per incident and $50,000 per person policy limitation. The insurance Elmore acquired was in force on April 5, 2014, when the accident occurred.2
DeWalt Auto did not possess the title certificate for the vehicle when it sold the vehicle to Elmore. According to the Counterstatement of the Case provided by Martin Cadillac, the title was never transferred from Martin Cadillacto DeWalt Auto Sales or Elmore. Appellee's Brf. at 2-3. Instead, Martin Cadillac admits it assigned the title to ABC at some point. Id. at 3. Henderson, general manager of Martin Cadillac, stated in his deposition that Martin Cadillac delivered the title to ABC on January 24, 2014. Depo., p. 31. The trial court's order granting summary judgment noted that as of Opinion, p. 2. Henderson admitted, however, that as of April 5, 2014, the title document still reflected Martin Cadillac as the vehicle's title holder. Depo., p. 31.
Reviewing the Certificate of Title that was submitted with Armstrong's motion for partial summary judgment, we note that the first dealer assignment, for Martin Cadillac, was signed and notarized on November 30, 2013. The second dealer assignment section has the transferor's signature and is dated January 14, 2014. It has no transferee's signature, nor does it have the "Seller Dealer No." nor the "Purchasing Dealer No."
At issue, then, is who owned the car - and whose insurance is potentially responsible for damages stemming from the traffic collision. The trial court found that Elmore, as the purchaser for use who provided proof of insurance prior to the vehicle's possession, was the vehicle's owner, and his insurance company was potentially responsible for damages. Appellant argues that Martin Cadillac was the vehicle's owner because it held legal title and transferred possession of the vehicle to DeWalt without obtaining proof of insurance. ThatDeWalt later attempted to transfer ownership of the vehicle to Elmore is of no consequence according to Appellant, because DeWalt never possessed ownership to transfer. We thus must resolve under these facts who was the vehicle's owner.
We begin with the statutory definition of owner. A vehicle's "owner" is the "person who holds the legal title of a vehicle or a person who pursuant to a bona fide sale has received physical possession of the vehicle subject to any applicable security interest." Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 186.010(7)(a). See also KRS 186A.345; Nantz v. Lexington Lincoln Mercury Subaru, 947 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Ky. 1997). That owner may trade in a car to a dealer, and the dealer may then "title by assignment" the trade-in vehicle into the dealer's name. KRS 186A.230. From that point, the dealer may then sell the vehicle and transfer ownership.
Transferring ownership depends on whether the transferor is a dealer or a non-dealer. Relevant here, Martin Cadillac is a licensed motor vehicle dealer. When the owner is a licensed motor vehicle dealer, the dealer transfers its ownership to a "purchaser pursuant to a bona fide sale" when the dealer "transfers physical possession of the motor vehicle" and complies with the requirements of KRS 186A.220. KRS 186.010(7)(c). Under KRS 186A.220, when a dealer transfers a vehicle to a "purchaser for use," the dealer has to deliver a "properly assigned certificate of title," and other appropriate documents to "such purchaser."KRS 186A.220(5)(a).3 At that point, the vehicle's purchaser has the obligation to file the title...
To continue reading
Request your trial