Encompass Home & Auto Ins. Co. v. Stevens Hale & Assocs.

• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:19-cv-79
• Decision Date: 11 August 2022
• Citation: 621 F.Supp.3d 1326
• Parties: ENCOMPASS HOME & AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. STEVENS HALE & ASSOCIATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

621 F.Supp.3d 1326

ENCOMPASS HOME & AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. STEVENS HALE & ASSOCIATES, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:19-cv-79

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

Signed August 11, 2022

Pamela Newsom Lee, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PlaintiffEncompass Home & Auto Insurance Company("Encompass") initiated this lawsuit on April 11, 2019, seeking to recover from Defendant Stevens Hale & Associates ("Stevens Hale") the economic losses it suffered when claims were made on two Encompass insurance policies Stevens Hale had been involved in procuring.(Doc. 1(original Complaint);see doc. 44 (Second Amended Complaint).)In the Second Amended Complaint, Encompass asserts negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent undertaking claims against Stevens Hale.(See doc. 44.)Presently before the Court is Stevens Hale's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 58), in which it argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on all of Encompass's claims.(See doc. 58-1.)For the following reasons, the CourtGRANTSDefendant Stevens Hale & Associates' Motion for Summary Judgment.(Doc. 58.)

BACKGROUND

I.Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed.¹

A.The Parties

Plaintiff Encompass is an insurance provider that provided insurance to non-partyWilliam Thomas and his family.(See doc. 62, pp. 1-2;see doc. 58-3, p. 3; doc. 58-4, p. 2;see generally docs.44, 58-1, 60.)DefendantStevens Hale is the insurance agency William Thomas used to obtain the Encompass insurance policy.(See doc. 62, p. 2;see also doc. 58-14, p. 2.)The Thomas family includes William Thomas, his wife, and their three children: Taylor Thomas, Tyler Thomas, and Catie Thomas.(See doc. 44, pp. 2-4.)Notably, Tyler and Catie Thomas obtained their drivers' licenses on July 9, 2014, and June 25, 2015, respectively.(Doc. 58-4, p. 4.)

B.The Insurance Policy

Encompass issued an insurance policy (the "Policy") to William Thomas and his family, providing automobile liability and personal umbrella coverages, with the policy period starting June 30, 2015.(Doc. 58-3, p. 3; doc. 58-4, p. 2.)To obtain the Policy, William Thomas engaged Jennie Waller, an insurance agent with Stevens Hale.(See doc. 62, p. 2.)Waller submitted an online form application (the "Online Application") to Encompass on behalf of William Thomas to procure the Policy.(Id.)In response, Encompass issued a "trailing document checklist" on June 29, 2015.(Id.)The checklist stated, in relevant part: "RETAIN the following documents in your files (do not upload or fax): a signed copy of the Personal Auto Application [and] Personal Umbrella Application."(Id.;see doc. 58-5.)

Waller then emailed the Policy's application documents, (doc. 58-7), (the "Retained Application") to William Thomas on June 29, 2015, for him to sign, and the parties agree that William Thomas did indeed sign most of the necessary pages in the Retained Application, (doc. 62, p. 3;see doc. 58-7).However, William Thomas did not sign the third page of the Retained Application.(See doc. 58-7, p. 3.)Furthermore, Waller did not send the Retained Application to Encompass prior to the issuance of the Policy, nor did Encompass request it.(See doc. 62, p. 3;see doc. 58-4, pp. 3-4.)Instead, Encompass received information about the Thomases through the Online Application.(Doc. 62, p. 3;see doc. 58-4, p. 3; doc. 58-8.)Notably, in both the Online Application and the Retained Application, Waller listed only the following family members as drivers: William Thomas, his wife, and Taylor Thomas.(Doc. 58-4, pp. 3-4;see doc. 58-7, p. 2.)Indeed, Waller did not list Catie or Tyler Thomas as drivers on either application.(Doc. 58-4, pp. 3-4;see doc. 58-7, p. 2.)Furthermore, the Policy covered, among other vehicles, a 2008 Honda CRV (the "Vehicle").(Doc. 58-3, pp. 6-7;see doc. 58-9, p. 8.)Finally, the Policy provided bodily injury limits of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per incident and personal umbrella limits of $2,000,000.(Doc. 58-4, p. 2.)

C.The Accident & Amendments to the Policy

On August 30, 2015, Catie Thomas was driving the Vehicle when she failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with an automobile occupied by Robert and Barbara Flynn(the "Accident").(Doc. 44, p. 2;see doc. 62, p. 5.)Tragically, Robert Flynn died at the scene of the Accident, and Barbara Flynn suffered significant injuries.(Doc. 44, p. 2; doc. 46, p. 5.)As noted above, at the time the Accident occurred, William Thomas, his wife, and Taylor Thomas were the only drivers listed on the Policy.(See doc. 58-4, p. 3; doc. 58-9, p. 10.)

On September 1, 2015, Waller, per Encompass's request, emailed Encompass a copy of the Retained Application.(Doc. 58-4, p. 4;see doc. 58-10.)However, the version of the Retained Application that Waller emailed to Encompass did not contain William Thomas's signatures on any of the pages.(See doc. 58-4, p. 4;see also doc. 58-10.)Encompass then instructed Stevens Hale to add both Catie and Tyler Thomas to the Policy.(Doc. 62, pp. 7-8;see doc. 58-9, pp. 173, 175-78;see also doc. 58-4, p. 4; doc. 58-22, pp. 10-11.)Waller subsequently added Catie and Tyler Thomas to the Policy for a period from September 4, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for additional premiums.(Doc. 62, pp. 7-8;see doc. 58-9, pp. 173, 175-78;see also doc. 58-4, p. 4; doc. 58-22, pp. 10-11.)At the time Waller added Catie and Tyler Thomas(per Encompass's request), Encompass received Catie and Tyler Thomas's motor vehicle reports, which showed one "minor violation" for Tyler Thomas.(Doc 62, pp. 7-8;see doc. 58-4, p. 5; doc. 58-20, p. 3; doc. 58-22, pp. 10-11.)Therefore, by September 16, 2015, at the latest, Encompass possessed Tyler Thomas's motor vehicle report and knew about this minor violation.(Doc. 58-4, p. 4; doc. 58-22, p. 12;see doc. 58-9, pp. 173, 175(September 16, 2015, letter indicating the addition of Tyler Thomas as an operator to the Policy).)On December 4, 2015, for an additional premium, Encompass retroactively listed Catie Thomas as a driver on the Policy since June 30, 2015—the Policy's effective date—instead of September 4, 2015.(Doc. 62, p. 8.)Finally, per Encompass's request, Waller emailed the signed version of the Retained Application to Encompass on January 27, 2016.(Doc. 62, pp. 6-7.)

Encompass began making payments for claims based on the Accident in September 2015.(Id. at p. 8.)Specifically, on September 23, October 8, and November 11, 2015, Encompass issued payments for property damage stemming from the Accident.(Id.;see doc. 58-18, pp. 11-14, 24-26.)On July 20, 2017, the Flynn family demanded Encompass pay the $2.5 million limit on the Policy by August 11, 2017.(Doc. 58-17, p. 7.)After Encompass declined to comply with the Flynn family's demand, the Flynn family filed suit on August 11, 2017.(Id. at pp. 9-12, 16.)Though the exact date is unclear from the record, the parties agree that Encompass settled the suit by paying the Flynns $2,275,000 at some point after August 11, 2017.(Doc. 62, p. 11.)

II.Procedural History

Encompass originally filed suit on April 11, 2019, (doc. 1), and ultimately filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent undertaking against Stevens Hale, (see doc. 44, pp. 5-9).Stevens Hale subsequently filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking summary judgment on all of Encompass's claims.(Doc. 58.)Encompass filed a Response, (doc. 60), and Stevens Hale filed a Reply, (doc. 65).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment "shall" be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)."A fact is 'material' if it 'might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.' "FindWhat Inv'r Grp. v. FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1307(11th Cir.2011)(quotingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986)).A dispute is "genuine" if the "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Id.

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.SeeWilliamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298(11th Cir.2003).Specifically, the moving party must identify the portions of the record which establish that there are no "genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341(11th Cir.2011).When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may discharge its burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to prove her case at trial.Seeid.(citingCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986)).If the moving party discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of fact does exist.Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, a court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee Cnty., 630 F.3d 1346, 1353(11th Cir.2011)(citingRodriguez v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 508 F.3d 611, 616(11th Cir.2007)).However, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts."Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686(2007)."[T]he mere existence of some...