Cabral v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV-21-00411-PHX-DGC |
| Citation | 582 F.Supp.3d 701 |
| Parties | Jake CABRAL, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Robert T. Mills, Sean Anthony Woods, Thomas A. Connelly, Mills & Woods Law PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
Kelley Michelle Jancaitis, Robert Thomas Aquinas Sullivan, Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
The parties disagree on whether Plaintiff's claims are covered by a homeowner's insurance policy, and Defendant State Farm has moved for summary judgment on this issue. The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 17, 18, 27, 28, 29) and the Court heard oral argument on January 13, 2022. For reasons set forth below, the Court finds no coverage and will grant summary judgment to Defendant.
On November 24, 2017, Plaintiff was riding a dirt bike on sand dunes in California when he was involved in a collision with a dune buggy driven by Renee Denney. Both Plaintiff and Renee were seriously injured.
Through his father and guardian ad litem, Plaintiff sued Renee in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-2014-L-BGS ("the California lawsuit"). Defendant State Farm had issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Renee and Jerry Denney ("the Policy"), but denied liability for the accident and Plaintiff's injuries. The Denneys and Plaintiff settled the California lawsuit with a stipulated judgment against the Denneys for $1.5 million, an assignment to Plaintiff of the Denneys’ rights under the Policy, and a covenant by Plaintiff not to collect the judgment from the Denneys.
Plaintiff then sued Defendant in this case, asserting the claims assigned to him by the Denneys. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, insurance bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and consumer fraud. Plaintiff claims that the Policy provides coverage for his medical expenses, first aid expenses, bodily injuries, and property damage. Defendant continues to maintain that the Policy does not cover Plaintiff's injuries.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit will preclude summary judgment – the disputed evidence must be "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Plaintiff frames the single issue in this case as follows: "coverage in this action comes down to one central factual question – did Jerry Denney own the [dune buggy] in November 2017, on the day of the Collision?" Doc. 27 at 7. Defendant agrees that there is only one issue: Doc. 29 at 2.1
This case turns on a single issue because the Policy language is clear and the parties do not disagree on its meaning. The Policy's coverage for liability and medical expenses expressly excludes bodily injury or property damage "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of ... a motor vehicle owned or operated by ... any insured [.]" Doc. 18-1 at 19, ¶ 1(e)(2) (emphasis in original).2 The Policy defines "motor vehicle" to include "recreational vehicles," including a "dune buggy," that are "owned or leased by an insured." Id. at 58, ¶ 6(c). Thus, the dune buggy at issue in this case was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Policy and was excluded from coverage if it was owned or leased by Renee or Jerry Denney, the "insureds" under the Policy. (See Doc. 18 at 3, ¶¶ 12-13; Doc. 28 at 2, ¶¶ 12-13).3
Defendant contends that Jerry Denney's ownership of the dune buggy is an undisputed fact that entitles it to summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that Jerry's ownership is disputed and must be resolved by a jury. The Court accordingly must decide whether there is a genuine question of fact about Jerry's ownership of the dune buggy.
Both Jerry and Renee testified in depositions that Jerry owned the dune buggy. See Docs. 28-2 at 35 ( ), 49 ( ), 29-1 at 6 ( ). Defendant also presents an affidavit in which Jerry confirms that he owned the dune buggy. Doc. 21-1 at 3.
In his deposition, Jerry explained how he acquired the dune buggy. He testified that he has been involved with dune buggies since the early 1970s and has built, bought parts for, and revamped dune buggies for many years. Doc. 28-2 at 46. He testified that he built the dune buggy at issue in this case from spare parts he had accumulated and a frame he bought in the 1990s. Id. (). Jerry testified that he used the dune buggy only at the California sand dunes, that he never applied for an Arizona license plate for the vehicle, that it had no vehicle identification number ("VIN"), and that he purchased Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") decals when he took the dune buggy to the California sand dunes. Id. at 46-47.4 Renee testified that she and Jerry transported the dune buggy from Arizona to California in November 2017 by towing it on a trailer behind their motorhome. Id. at 37. Jerry states in his affidavit that he stored the dune buggy at his home in Gilbert, Arizona, maintained it for off-road use, and did not register it with the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles. Doc. 21-1 at 3.
Plaintiff responds to this evidence by focusing on the lack of documentary proof of Jerry's ownership and the behavior of the Denneys, their counsel, and Defendant in the California lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts that there is "not one piece of documentary or physical evidence to support" Jerry's ownership of the dune buggy, pointing to the lack of "title, license plate, decal, insurance, bill of sale, receipt, photographs, or any other such objective indicia that would normally support the ownership of a motor vehicle." Doc. 27 at 8. Plaintiff places particular significance on the lack of a title, citing Arizona law that requires owners of off-highway vehicles to apply for an Arizona title. See Doc. 27 at 3 (). Plaintiff argues that "[b]ecause there is no objective evidence to support [the claim that Jerry owned the dune buggy,] that makes Jerry's credibility as a witness a central issue" in this case and the Court cannot make credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage. Id.
Plaintiff also cites the following from the California lawsuit: (1) a declaration from his counsel that the Denneys’ attorney and Defendant's employees did not disclose that Jerry was the owner of the dune buggy; (2) emails between his counsel and the Denneys’ counsel in which the Denneys’ counsel did not identify an owner of the dune buggy; and (3) communications from Defendant to Plaintiff's counsel in which Defendant did not identify the grounds for denying coverage. Docs. 27, 28-1. Plaintiff also cites (4) deposition testimony by Anthony Miller, a claims adjuster for Defendant, stating that he relied on the Denneys’ representation that they owned the dune buggy and conducted no investigation to confirm this fact; (5) deposition testimony by Jody Broaddus, the Denneys’ counsel in the California lawsuit, that the Denneys’ never provided her with documentation of Jerry's ownership; (6) deposition testimony by Renee that she has no documentation showing that Jerry owned the dune buggy, such as a bill of sale, maintenance records, or photographs; and (7) deposition testimony by Jerry that he never applied for an Arizona title or license plate, he never obtained insurance for the dune buggy, the dune buggy had no VIN, and he had no receipts for maintenance of the vehicle. Id. Plaintiff argues that these facts call the credibility of Jerry's claim of ownership into question, precluding summary judgment.
The motion presents an interesting summary judgment issue. Defendant presents affirmative evidence that Jerry owned the dune buggy – deposition testimony from two witnesses and a sworn affidavit. Plaintiff presents no affirmative evidence that Jerry did not own the dune buggy, and never explains who else might have owned it or where else Renee might have obtained it in November 2017. Plaintiff instead argues that the lack of documentary proof of ownership is a sufficient reason to doubt the credibility of the Denneys’ claim and deny summary judgment. The Court will address Plaintiff's arguments under Arizona vehicle licensing law and then whether Plaintiff's credibility arguments are sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
When deciding issues of vehicle ownership, Arizona courts ask which party possesses and controls the...
To continue reading
Request your trial