Brannan v. GEICO Indem. Co., Case No. 1:12-cv-238-GRJ
| Decision Date | 18 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cv-238-GRJ |
| Parties | JAMES BRANNAN, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, v. GEICO INDEMNITY CO. and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., Defendants/Counter-plaintiffs. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
This is an action for uninsured motorist benefits arising out of an October 13, 2010, motorcycle accident in which Plaintiff James Brannan suffered injuries. There is no dispute that the at-fault driver was an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was the policyholder of a motorcycle insurance policy issued by Defendant GEICO Indemnity ("Indemnity") (the "Motorcycle Policy") and was also the policyholder of an automobile insurance policy for three automobiles (the "Auto Policy") issued by Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO"). The issue before this Court is the amount of benefits to which Plaintiff is entitled under the policies. Defendant Indemnity tendered payment to Plaintiff of the $10,000 uninsured motorist ("UM") benefit under the Motorcycle Policy, but Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to an additional $300,000 in policy benefits, plus other compensation, because the UM benefits under the Motorcycle Policy should be stacked with the total $300,000 in UM benefits under the Auto Policy.
Plaintiff is proceeding pursuant to a Second Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Relief (Doc. 44), in which he asserts claims for breach of contract (Count I), negligence (Count II), violation of Fla. Stat. § 627.4137 (Count III), and declaratory relief (Count IV) as to his entitlement to stacked UM coverage. GEICO filed a Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief (Doc. 53). The case is presently before the Court upon Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or Abate Counts II and III of the Second Amended Petition (Docs. 71, 72); GEICO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim and Counts I and IV (Doc. 75); Indemnity's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I and IV (Doc. 82); Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 102); GEICO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts II and III (Doc. 104); and Indemnity's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts II and III (Doc. 106). Each party has responded to the opposing parties' motions, and the motions are therefore ripe for determination. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff's claims and on Defendant GEICO's counterclaim.
The facts that are relevant to the disposition of the pending motions may be summarized as follows. Plaintiff initially insured automobiles with Defendant GEICO in or around 1998. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff owned three automobiles which were insured under a FloridaFamily Automobile Insurance Policy ("Auto Policy") issued to him by GEICO. Doc. 1-1 pp. 52-83; Doc. 44; Doc. 53-1. Pursuant to the Auto Policy Declarations, the policy provided non-stacked UM coverage limits of $100,000/$300,000 each person/each occurrence. Doc. 1-1 pp. 52-83; Doc. 53-1; Brannan Duces Tecum Response p. 0233. Plaintiff expressly rejected stacked coverage when he signed the UM selection form for the Auto Policy on October 12, 2009. Doc. 53-2; Brannan Depo. Exh. 11; Brannan Duces Tecum Response pp. 0228-0233. The form states, inter alia, that:
At a reduced rate, you have the option to purchase the non-stacked (limited) type of UM coverage. Under this option, if an injury occurs in a vehicle owned or leased by you . . . only the limits of coverage (if any) which apply to that vehicle will be used. (Note that there is no coverage under this policy for a person who is injured while occupying a motor vehicle or motorcycle owned by you or a family member who resides with you which is not covered under the liability coverages section of this policy.)
Plaintiff checked on the form: "I want Non-Stacked Uninsured Motorist coverage at the limit checked below: (May not exceed the limits of your Bodily Injury Liability coverage.)" Plaintiff also selected the $100,000/$300,000 coverage limit. Doc. 53-2; Brannan Depo. Exh. 11; Brannan Duces Tecum Response pp. 0228-0233. The language of this form was approved by the Florida Department of Insurance. See Doc. 104 Exh. D. Prior to November 10, 2009, Plaintiff did not carry UM coverage on his Auto Policy and expressly rejected such coverage. Brannan Depo. pp. 36-37. After electing UM coverage, every six months Plaintiff received a declarations page for the Auto Policy which contained the designation "UNINSURED MOTORIST/NONSTACKED." Brannan Depo. pp. 35-43.
In 2008, Plaintiff obtained a policy issued by Indemnity to insure his 2008 Suzuki V1800 Boulevard C50. See Doc. 103, Exh. B. Although Indemnity issues both Auto and Motorcycle policies, they must be issued as separate policies. Hood Depo. p. 99, Doc. 106 Exh. C.
On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff contacted Indemnity's toll-free call center and requested that towing and stacking UM coverage be added to the Motorcycle Policy, with limits of $10,000.00/$20,000.00 each person/each occurrence. See Doc. 82-1, pp. 64-65, 68-69, 93-94 (Brannan depo.). The representative who received and responded to Plaintiff's call was a licensed insurance agent by the name of Lacy Carter. See Policy Log Inquiry entry dated 10/5/09 in Exhibit 2 to Deposition of Robert Hood Doc. 89-2; Transcript of Deposition of Robert Hood at 28, 55, 17; Doc. 89-1; Doc. 103 Exh. C.
The UM coverage provisions, endorsements, and limitations of the Motorcycle Policy provide in relevant part:
PART IV - Uninsured Motorists Coverage
We will pay damages which a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by a covered person and caused by an accident. The owner's or operator's liability for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle. We will also pay for damages the covered person is legally entitled to recover for bodily injury caused by accident and arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of an underinsured motor vehicle.
* * * *
Limits of Liability
1. The limit of bodily injury shown on the Declarations as applying to "each person" is the limit we will pay for all damages sustained by one person as a result of one accident covered by this Part. The most we will pay for all such damages, sustained by one person as the result of one accident, is the sum of the "each person" limits for Uninsured Motorists coverage shown in the Declarations.
Doc. 1-1 pp. 46-47; Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures; Brannan Depo. Exhs. 1, 5, 7.
Following the accident, Plaintiff submitted a claim for UM benefits to Indemnity. Plaintiff, through counsel, requested an affidavit of insurance pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.4137. Indemnity claims manager, Rita Collier, prepared an affidavit of insurance coverage with respect to the Motorcycle Policy that confirmed that the Motorcycle Policy was issued on the 2008 Suzuki, and provided stacking uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000.00 per person. The affidavit then stated that the "number of listed vehicles" was "3". It further stated "Additional Insurance Coverage: None Known at this Time." Doc. 1-1 at 12. On November 11, 2010, Collier executed a second affidavit reflecting that the number of listed vehicles was "1". Doc. 1-1 at 14. On October 4, 2011, Indemnity claims manager Karen E. Hall, prepared a third affidavit reflecting that "[o]ther listed vehicles" was "[n]one." Doc. 1-1 at 50.
Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to $10,000 UM coverage under the Motorcycle Policy and additional UM coverage under the separate Auto Policy in the amount of $100,000, stacked with his Motorcycle Policy. Doc. 103 Exh. E. GEICO denied UM coverage under the Auto Policy due to Plaintiff's express rejection of stacked coverage under that policy. Doc. 104, Exh. C. Indemnity tendered the $10,000 UM limit of the Motorcycle Policy to Plaintiff. Doc. 104, Exh. C.
Plaintiff asserts in Count I that Defendants breached their respective insurance policies by refusing to pay him UM benefits under each policy. In Count II, he contends that "Defendants agreed to provide Mr. Brannan with stacked uninsured motorist coverage under his Motorcycle Policy, such that the uninsured motorist coverage provided under his Motorcycle Policy would be stacked against the uninsured motorist coverage provided under his Auto Policy." He contends that Defendants owed him a duty to procure and issue a policy or policies that would provide him with the stacked coverage he requested, and that Defendants negligently breached that duty. In Count III, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 627.4137 by failing to timely provide him with accurate, truthful, and timely policy information as required by the statute. In Count IV, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to whether the coverage exclusions of the Auto Policy apply as a bar to coverage under that policy in light of Plaintiff's assertion that the Auto and Motorcycle policies could or should have been issued under a single policy. Doc. 44.
GEICO's counterclaim seeks a declaration that the Auto Policy does not provide any UM benefits to Plaintiff for the motorcycle accident, because the policy excludes from coverage injuries suffered while occupying a motorcycle owned by an insured, which is not insured under the Liability Coverages section of the Auto Policy. Doc. 53.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), "[t]he 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial