Erie Ins. Co. v. Dolly
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-1151,16-1151 |
| Citation | 811 S.E.2d 875 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Petitioner, v. Ricky A. DOLLY, Plaintiff Below, Respondent. |
Ancil G. Ramey, Esq., Hannah C. Ramey, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, Eric J. Hulett, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner
Jonathan G. Brill, Esq., Jonathan G. Brill, PLLC, Romney, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent
Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company ("Erie") appeals two orders of the Circuit Court of Hampshire County entered in a civil action instituted by Ricky A. Dolly, Erie's insured. First, Erie appeals the November 10, 2016, Order Granting Plaintiff's Petition for Declaratory Judgment, wherein the circuit court held that Erie was required to provide Mr. Dolly with the statutory minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage1 for a trailer and all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") that Mr. Dolly was towing when he was struck by an at-fault, uninsured motorist. Second, Erie appeals the July 11, 2016, order through which the circuit court denied Erie's motion to dismiss Mr. Dolly's separate claims for common law bad faith and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA")2 (collectively referred to herein as "the bad faith claims"). Upon a review of this matter, we conclude that the circuit court correctly granted declaratory judgment in favor of Mr. Dolly on the coverage issue. We also determine that Erie's challenge to the order denying its motion to dismiss the bad faith claims is an interlocutory matter not subject to appeal at this time. Accordingly, we affirm the declaratory judgment ruling and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
On September 13, 2013, Mr. Dolly was driving his pick-up truck along a highway in Hampshire County. The truck was towing a trailer that carried an ATV, both of which were owned by Mr. Dolly. Emily M. Cole, while operating a sports utility vehicle owned by her father, negligently struck the side of Mr. Dolly's vehicle. Mr. Dolly was not injured but he suffered the total loss of his truck, trailer, and ATV as the result of this collision.
The Coles failed to maintain any liability insurance on their sports utility vehicle, and Mr. Dolly filed a claim with his own automobile insurance carrier, Erie. His Erie automobile policy provided $10,000 in uninsured motorist coverage for property damage. Soon after the collision, Erie paid Mr. Dolly for the loss of his truck.3 However, relying on policy exclusions,4 Erie denied coverage and refused to pay for the trailer and ATV.5
Mr. Dolly filed suit against the Coles in May 2014. In December 2014, the complaint was amended to name Erie as a notice party, but no claims were asserted against Erie.6 In or about September 2015, Mr. Dolly and Ms. Cole entered into a settlement agreement whereby Ms. Cole admitted liability, confirmed that she was an uninsured motorist, and conceded that Mr. Dolly's uncompensated property damages were $19,420.72. Erie did not object to the settlement agreement; therefore, by order entered November 2, 2015, the circuit court adopted the settlement terms and entered judgment in favor of Mr. Dolly for $19,420.72 plus interest.
On March 9, 2016, Mr. Dolly moved the circuit court for leave to amend his complaint to add claims against Erie; this motion was granted on March 17, 2016. In this amended complaint, Mr. Dolly sought a declaratory ruling that Erie was responsible for paying for the trailer and the ATV pursuant to his uninsured motorist coverage. In separate counts, he also alleged and sought damages for common law bad faith and violation of the UTPA. Erie filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint as time-barred, which the circuit court denied by order of July 11, 2016. Thereafter, Erie filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief arguing that there was no uninsured motorist coverage for the trailer and the ATV because of the policy exclusions.7 In cross motions, Mr. Dolly and Erie each argued in support of their respective petitions for declaratory judgment on the coverage issue.
After considering the parties' arguments, the circuit court entered its declaratory judgment order on November 10, 2016. The court concluded that despite the exclusionary language in the policy, Mr. Dolly was entitled to recover up to the statutorily-mandated uninsured motorist coverage minimum limit for the loss of his trailer and for the ATV that was being hauled on the trailer. See W.Va. Code § 33–6–31(b) (1998) (). At the time of this collision and the effective dates of Mr. Dolly's policy, the mandatory minimum for property damage coverage was $10,000. See id. However, the circuit court also determined that Erie was not required by law to provide uninsured motorist coverage for amounts in excess of the statutorily-mandated minimum. Accordingly, the circuit court entered judgment against Erie in the amount of $10,000.8 By separate order, the circuit court stayed its consideration of the common law bad faith and UTPA claims pending Erie's appeal of the declaratory judgment order.9
The coverage issue that Erie brings before this Court presents a question of law arising from a declaratory judgment order. "A circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo ." Syl. Pt. 3, Cox v. Amick , 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995). Moreover, it is well-settled that "[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L. , 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). With this plenary standard in mind, we consider Erie's petition for appeal.
Erie argues that pursuant to its clear and unambiguous policy exclusions, Mr. Dolly's trailer and ATV are not covered by his uninsured motorist coverage. "Where provisions in an insurance policy are plain and unambiguous and where such provisions are not contrary to a statute ... the provisions will be applied and not construed." Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 175 W.Va. 337, 332 S.E.2d 639 (1985) (citations omitted). In his brief to this Court, Mr. Dolly does not allege ambiguity in any of the policy's exclusionary language. Instead, he argues, and the circuit court found, that Erie's denial is contrary to statutory law.
The issue before this Court is whether, notwithstanding the policy exclusions, the Uninsured Motorist Law, West Virginia Code § 33–6–31(b) (1998),10 requires Erie to provide up to the statutorily-mandated minimum limit of uninsured motorist coverage for the trailer attached to Mr. Dolly's truck and the ATV that was being hauled on that trailer. This law specifies:
Nor shall any such policy or contract [of motor vehicle liability insurance] be so issued or delivered unless it shall contain an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, within limits which shall be no less than the requirements of section two [ § 17D–4–2 ], article four, chapter seventeen-d of this code, as amended from time to time: Provided, That such policy or contract shall provide an option to the insured with appropriately adjusted premiums to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle up to an amount of one hundred thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to said limit for one person, in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident and in the amount of fifty thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident[.]
W.Va. Code § 33–6–31(b), in part.11 Pursuant to this statutory language, an insurer must provide the statutorily-designated minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage (at the time of this accident, $10,000 for property damages12 ) to reimburse the insured for "all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from" an uninsured motorist. Id. However, uninsured coverage above the minimum amount is optional. Id. The purpose of the Uninsured Motorist Law is "to protect victims who are injured by the negligence of drivers who have failed to comply with the liability insurance requirements[.]" Boniey v. Kuchinski , 223 W.Va. 486, 491, 677 S.E.2d 922, 927 (2009) ().
Because Mr. Dolly is "legally entitled to recover as damages" compensation for his destroyed trailer and ATV from Ms. Cole, who is "the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle[,]" the circuit court found that Erie must, by law, provide the statutorily-mandated minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage for this loss. It is well-settled that "[s]tatutory provisions mandated by the Uninsured Motorist Law ... may not be altered by insurance policy exclusions." Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Deel v. Sweeney , 181 W.Va. 460, 383 S.E.2d 92 (1989). Similarly, "[i]nsurers may incorporate such terms, conditions and exclusions in an automobile insurance policy ... so long as any such exclusions do not conflict with the spirit and intent of the uninsured ... motorists statutes." Id. at 460–61, 383 S.E.2d at 92–93, syl. pt. 3, in part. We agree with the circuit court's conclusion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chafin v. Boal
... ... Syl. pt. 1, Wickland v. Am. Travellers Life Ins ... Co. , 204 W.Va. 430, 513 S.E.2d 657 (1998) ... Because ... reasons as the summary judgment order. See Syl. pt ... 7, in part, Erie Ins. Co. v. Dolly , 240 W.Va. 345, ... 811 S.E.2d 875 (2018) ("'The key to determining if ... ...
-
Cabell Cnty. Comm'n v. Whitt
...the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment is unquestionably correctable in a direct appeal. See, e.g., Erie Ins. Co. v. Dolly , 240 W. Va. 345, 355, 811 S.E.2d 875, 885 (2018) (collateral order doctrine does not defeat the rule of finality where issue "may be reviewed pursuant to an ap......
- Mutter v. Ross
-
Kroeger v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
...policy, is valid for any coverage above the minimum amount of underinsured motorist coverage required by law. See Erie Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 811 S.E. 2d 875, 881-82 (W. Va. 2018). The GEICO West Virginia policy at issue in the present case includes both exclusions. Such exclusions are not, how......