Eberly v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-6308 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA G. EBERLY, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Bryan L. Eberly, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
In this action, the plaintiff seeks underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits on behalf of her husband, who was killed in a tragic automobile accident in June 2016. At the time of the accident, the decedent was operating a vehicle that was owned by and provided for his regular use by his employer. He was also covered under an insurance policy issued to him and his wife by the defendants, which provided for stacked UIM coverage. In addition, the plaintiff and the decedent's son, who resided with them in their home at the time of the accident, also had an insurance policy issued to him by the defendants, which provided for non-stacked UIM coverage. The plaintiffs sought coverage under both policies, but the defendants denied those claims, citing the “regular use exclusion” contained in both policies.
The plaintiff thereafter brought the instant action seeking to obtain UIM benefits under the two policies. After removing the action to this court, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the regular use exclusion precluded coverage under both of the policies. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to find that the regular use exclusion violates Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) and public policy. For the reasons discussed below the court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
The plaintiffs, Cynthia G. Eberly, individually, and as executrix of the Estate of Bryan L. Eberly, deceased, commenced this action by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons against the defendants, LM General Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on August 31, 2020. See Notice of Removal, Ex 1, Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons, Doc. No. 1-5. On December 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint. See Notice of Removal, Ex. 2, Doc. No. 1-6.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent, Bryan L. Eberly, was traveling eastbound on State Route 322 in Lebannon County on June 23, 2016, at approximately 12:43 p.m. Compl. at ¶ 19, Doc. No. 1-6. At the time, he was permissively operating a motor vehicle owned by BJ Baldwin Electric, Inc. Id.
Tragically, another vehicle traveling westbound on State Route 322 crossed from the westbound into the eastbound travel lane and struck Mr. Eberly's vehicle head-on at a high rate of speed. Id. at ¶ 20. After the collision, Mr. Eberly was trapped inside his vehicle due to the damage the vehicle sustained on impact, but he was responsive and able to answer questions posed to him by first responders. Id. at ¶ 21. Medical personnel were able to extricate him from the vehicle and transported him to Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Id. at ¶ 22. While at the hospital, Mr. Eberly died from his injuries. Id.
At the time of this accident, Mr. Eberly and Mrs. Eberly were insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 26, Ex. B. This policy provided for stacked UIM coverage in the amount of $250, 000 per person, covering two vehicles, thereby resulting in a potential of $500, 000 of UIM coverage for Mr. Eberly's claim. Id. at ¶ 27. In addition to Mr. and Mrs. Eberly's policy, their son, Adam Eberly, was residing in their home with them at the time of the accident. Id. at ¶ 31. Adam Eberly was a named insured on another automobile insurance policy issued by the defendants. Id. at ¶ 32. This policy provided for non-stacked UIM coverage in the amount of $250, 000 per person. Id. at ¶ 33.
The plaintiffs allege that the tortfeasor was underinsured, so Mrs. Eberly submitted UIM claims under both policies with the defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 28-29, 34. The defendants, by letter dated September 21, 2016, denied the UIM claims “citing a policy exclusion precluding coverage for bodily injury suffered while occupying a non-owned vehicle made available for regular use that is not insured under the polic[ies].” Id. at ¶¶ 30, 35, Exs. C, E.
Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs asserted two causes of action in the complaint. In the first cause of action, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that (1) Mr. Eberly was entitled to stacked UIM coverage totaling $500, 000 under the defendants' policy issued to him and Mrs. Eberly, and (2) Mr. Eberly was entitled to UIM coverage totaling $250, 000 under the defendants' policy issued to Adam Eberly. Id. at 10. In the second cause of action, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their insurance agreements by failing to pay UIM benefits to the plaintiffs for Mr. Eberly's injuries sustained in the accident. Id. at 11-12.
On December 15, 2020, the defendants timely filed a notice of removal with this this court. Doc. No. 1. The parties filed a joint stipulation to withdraw the plaintiffs' demand for attorney's fees on December 22, 2020. Doc. No. 2. On December 31, 2020, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint.[1] Doc. No. 5. Among the affirmative defenses, the defendants claim that Mr. Eberly “was using and occupying a non-owned motor vehicle that had been furnished or made available for his regular use, and which was not insured for [UIM] Coverage under [Mrs. Eberly's policy or Adam Eberly's policy].” Defs.' Answer to Pls.' Compl. with Affirmative Defenses at 10, Doc. No. 5.
The court held an initial pretrial conference with counsel for the parties on January 21, 2021, during which counsel indicated that the court should first resolve the coverage issue via cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 8, 2021, at the court's request, the parties filed a stipulation of facts for purposes of them filing cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the legal issue of the enforceability of the “regular use” auto policy exclusion. Doc. No. 9. On April 6, 2021, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a crossmotion for partial summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 10, 11. The parties filed opposition briefs to the motions for summary judgment on May 6, 2021. Doc. Nos. 12, 13. The court heard oral argument on the motions on May 20, 2021. Doc. No. 15. The motions for summary judgment are ripe for disposition.[2]
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may 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(a). “A fact is ‘material' if its existence or non-existence might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is ‘genuine' if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Price v. Commonwealth Charter Academy Cyber Sch., Civ. A. No. 19-4633, 2021 WL 1405876, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2021) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the portions of the record that it believes “demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party can meet this burden by showing that the non-moving party has “fail[ed] to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Id. at 322. The court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Abran v. City of Philadelphia, Civ. A. No. 18-cv-1107, 2020 WL 6781938, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2020) (citing Galena v. Leone, 638 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2011)). “However, unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations or mere suspicions are insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must point to evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue of material fact. See Doe v. DeJoy, No. 5:19-cv-5885, 2021 WL 777582, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2021) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party may not rest merely on the pleadings; rather it must “go beyond the pleadings and present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and cannot rely on unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions in attempting to survive a summary judgment motion.” Perez-Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 18-3783, 2021 WL 131343, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2021) (citing Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989)).
“The same standards and burdens apply on cross-motions for summary judgment.” Allah v. Ricci, 532 Fed.Appx. 48, 50 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). When confronted with cross-motions for summary judgment, “the court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the summary judgment standard.” Marciniak v. Prudential Fin. Ins. Co. of Am., 184 Fed.Appx. 266, 270 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
Bryan Eberly was killed in a motor vehicle accident on June 23 2016. Stipulation of Facts (“Stip.”) at ¶ 1, Doc. No. 9. At the time of the accident, h...
To continue reading
Request your trial