Bolden-Gardner v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. RDB-19-3199
• Parties: CYNTHIA BOLDEN-GARDNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

CYNTHIA BOLDEN-GARDNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

Civil Action No. RDB-19-3199

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

January 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiffs Cynthia Bolden-Gardner and Bennie Gardner (the "Gardners" or "the Plaintiffs") bring this lawsuit against Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") alleging breach of contract and corporate negligence with respect to Liberty Mutual's denial of coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of their automobile insurance policy. (ECF No. 1.) Presently pending before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21), as well as the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Punitive Damages (ECF No. 22).¹ The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED and the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); see also Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433 (4th Cir. 2013). The Gardners, residents of Mississippi, were involved in an automobile accident on July 11, 2018 in Prince George's County, Maryland. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 2, 6.) They allege that on that date, Bennie Gardner was driving on Route MD-214 with Cynthia Bolden-Gardner in the passenger seat. (Id. ¶ 6.) As they were traveling down Route MD-214, they claim that "suddenly and without any warning whatsoever," another motorist on the road rear-ended the vehicle it was traveling behind in the right lane, causing a collision. (Id. ¶ 9.) They further allege that this impact caused the motorist to swerve from the right lane to the left lane where the Gardners were driving. (Id. ¶ 10.) The motorist "violently collide[d]" with the Gardners' vehicle and proceeded to flee the scene. (Id.)

The Plaintiffs allege that they each suffered serious and painful injuries as a result of the crash. (Id. at p. 4 ¶ 13, p. 6 ¶ 13.) Specifically, Cynthia Bolden-Gardner alleges that she suffered a sprain and strain of her lumbar spine, thoracic spine and cervical spine; a C5-6 disc protrusion with focal spinal stenosis and cord compression; a right lateral annulus tear; a non-displaced subline tubercle fracture of her right elbow; sprain of her left wrist; post-traumatic headaches; loss of sleep; loss of appetite; and an acute anxiety reaction. (Id. at p. 4 ¶ 13.) Bennie Gardner alleges he suffered a severe sprain and strain of his cervical and lumbar spine; continual right hip pain; post-traumatic headaches; loss of sleep; loss of appetite; and an acute anxiety reaction. (Id. at p. 6 ¶ 13.)

After the accident, the Gardners sought to recover under the automobile insurance policy bearing the Policy Number A0S258-232694-70 (the "Policy") issued by Liberty Insurance, a corporation with its offices in Massachusetts, to the Gardners in April 2018. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Policy provides coverage for all sums which the Gardners, or any other person occupying their vehicle, would be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily injuries as a result of an accident with an uninsured motorist. (Id. ¶ 4.) They claim that the unidentified motorist, who they allege caused the accident, is an "uninsured" motorist under the Policy: he fled from the scene without stopping or reporting the accident or exchanging information with any of the affected drivers and/or passengers. (Id. ¶ 10.) For this reason, they claim they are entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the Policy. Liberty Mutual, however, denied coverage under that provision. (Id. at p. 6 ¶ 19, p. 8 ¶ 19.)

The Gardners filed this Complaint on November 5, 2019, alleging that the Defendant's dispute of their coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the Policy constitutes a breach of contract, and that the refusal to honor their claims under that provision constitutes unconscionable conduct and, therefore, amounts to negligence. (Id. at p. 6 ¶ 19, p. 9 ¶ 19, p. 8 ¶ 13.) As relief, they seek money damages, reimbursement of all costs associated with the bringing of this action, and interest on any judgment rendered pursuant to the instant action, as well as punitive damages. (Id. at 10.) On November 16, 2020, the Gardners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21), claiming there is no genuine dispute of material fact that exists as to their entitlement to coverage under the Policy. That same day, Liberty Mutual filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Punitive Damages (ECF No. 22).

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

The Gardners cannot prevail on their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21). At this time there remain genuine disputes as to material facts which might affect the outcome of the suit. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A genuine issue over a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge's function is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence exists on a claimed factual dispute to warrant submission of the matter to a jury for resolution at trial. Id. at 249.

In undertaking this inquiry, this Court must consider the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Libertarian Party of Va., 718 F.3d at 312; see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). This Court "must not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations." Foster v. University of Md.-Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Mercantile Peninsula Bank v. French, 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007)); see also Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the trial court may not make credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage). Indeed, it is the function of the fact-finder to resolve factual disputes,including issues of witness credibility. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866-68 (2014) (per curiam).

In an action based upon diversity of citizenship, a federal court must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including that state's choice of law rules. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elect. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496-97 (1941); see Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 2007); Ground Zero Museum Workshop v. Wilson, 813 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (D. Md. 2011); Baker v. Antwerpen Motorcars, Ltd., 807 F. Supp. 2d 386, 389 n.13 (D. Md. 2011). Therefore, Maryland law applies in this case. Generally, Maryland law requires insurance contracts to be objectively construed. See O'Quinn v. Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund, 850 A.2d 386, 389 (Md. Ct. Sp. App. 2004). Pursuant to Maryland law, an insurance agreement is to be viewed as a whole to determine the intention of the parties and the purpose which they sought to accomplish. See id. When the provisions of the insurance contract are not ambiguous, a court should enforce them according to their plain meaning. See id.

If the Court determines that the insurance contract is ambiguous, "the ambiguity shall be resolved against the drafter of the policy and in favor of the insured." Id. (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 558 A.2d 1244 (Md. Ct. Sp. App. 1989)); see also Mamsi Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Callaway, 825 A.2d 995 (Md. 2003). Generally, when an insurance contract is ambiguous, a jury is to construe the language of the insurance contract, and it may use extrinsic evidence to determine the intention of the parties and whether the ambiguous language has a trade usage. See C & H Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 287 A.2d 238, 239 (Md. 1972); Pacific Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 488 A.2d 486, 489 (Md. 1985) (citations omitted). However, if there is no factualdispute presented by the evidence, the court may construe an ambiguous contract. Pacific Indem. Co., 488 A.2d at 489; see also World-Wide Rights Ltd. P'ship v. Combe Inc., 955 F.2d 242, 245 (4th Cir.1992) ("Even where a court, however, determines as a matter of law that the contract is ambiguous, it may yet examine evidence extrinsic to the contract that is included in the summary judgment materials, and, if that evidence is, as a matter of law, dispositive of the interpretive issue, grant summary judgment on that basis.").

When presented with choice-of-law questions, Maryland courts follow the rule of lex loci contractus, applying the substantive law of the state where the contract was formed, unless there is a choice-of-law provision in the contract. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Heffernan, 925 A.2d 636, 648 (Md. 2007); Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. ARTRA Group, Inc., 659 A.2d 1295, 1301 (Md. 1995); see also Cunningham v. Feinberg, 107 A.3d 1194, 1204 (Md. 2015); Lewis v. Waletzky, 31 A.3d 123, 129 n.8 (Md. 2011). "For choice-of-law purposes, a contract is made where the last act necessary to make the contract binding occurs." Konover Property Trust, Inc. v. WHE Assocs., Inc., 790 A.2d 720, 728 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (citing Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Porter Hayden Co., 698 A.2d 1167, 1200 (Md. Ct. Spec....