Guideone Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 4:11–CV–009–A.,4:11–CV–009–A.
• Citation: 806 F.Supp.2d 923
• Parties: GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MISSIONARY CHURCH OF DISCIPLES OF JESUS CHRIST, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

806 F.Supp.2d 923

GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.MISSIONARY CHURCH OF DISCIPLES OF JESUS CHRIST, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:11–CV–009–A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Aug. 16, 2011.

David M. Pruessner, Esq., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

David Lewis Llewellyn, Esq., Citrus Heights, CA, Christopher J. Deeves, Esq., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER (On Summary Judgment Motion)

JOHN McBRYDE, District Judge.

Before the court for decision is the motion for summary-judgment of plaintiff, GuideOne Specialty Mutual Insurance Company. After having considered such motion, the responses of defendants Sonya Gilmore (“Gilmore”), Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ (“Church”), and Amando Salgado (“Salgado”) (the latter two, collectively, “Church Defendants”), the supplemental filings of the parties,¹ the summary judgment record, and applicable legal authorities, the court has concluded for the reasons given below that such motion should be granted, and that declaratory relief and a requested injunction should be ordered.

I.Nature of the Action

This action was brought by plaintiff under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, seeking a declaration that it has no obligation under a liability insurance policy it issued to Church (a) to provide a defense to any of the defendants in a damage suit brought by Gilmore against Church Defendants and Michael A. Meyer (“Meyer”) in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, 131st Judicial District, as Cause No.2008–CI–03917, styled “ Sonya Gilmore v. Michael A. Meyer, Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ, and Amando Salgado ” (“underlying lawsuit”), seeking recovery of damages Gilmore sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 9, 2006, in San Antonio, Texas, involving a vehicle operated by Meyer and a vehicle operated by Gilmore (“March 9, 2006, collision”) or (b) to indemnify Meyer or Church Defendants as to any claims made against them by Gilmore for damages sustained by Gilmore by reason of such collision.²

Gilmore alleged in the underlying lawsuit that the vehicle Meyer was operating was “owned and/or controlled by [Church] and/or [Salgado],” Mot., Am. App. at GIG 0249, that Salgado and Meyer were employees of Church at all times relevant to the allegations made in the underlying lawsuit, and that Church is liable for the acts and/or omissions of Salgado and Meyer, id. Apparently Gilmore is claiming in the underlying lawsuit that Church and Salgado are liable for Meyers's conduct at the time of the collision based on a negligent entrustment theory and that Church is liable for the conduct of Salgado and Meyer based on a respondeat superior theory.

Gilmore was joined as a defendant in this declaratory judgment action so that she will be bound by whatever declarations the court makes.

II.The Summary Judgment Record

A. Pertinent Provisions of the Insurance Policy

While there is disagreement as to the legal effect of language of the insurance policy in question, there is no dispute as to its wording and structure.

The policy, which bears Policy No. 1215–179, was issued by plaintiff to Church (“Insurance Policy”). Mot., Am. App. at GIG 0027 (GIG 0137); GIG 0029 (GIG 0139). The liability insurance coverage provided by the Insurance Policy was under a Comprehensive General Liability Coverage Form (“Form”) (the liability insurance coverage provided by the Form, as modified by endorsements, except the endorsement titled “Amendatory Endorsement, Hired and Nonowned Business Auto Coverage–Excess Liability and Medical Payments Insurance,” is referred to herein as the “CGLC”). Id. at GIG 0059 (GIG 0169).

The bodily injury and property damage insuring agreement of the CGLC, which is found in the Form and an amendatory endorsement, was worded in pertinent part as follows:

We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However we have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply.³

Id. at GIG 0044 (GIG 0154), GIG 0059 (GIG 0169). The word “insured” as used in the basic CGLC insuring agreement included Church; Church's employees or managers, but only for acts within the scope of their employment by Church or while performing duties related to the conduct of Church's business, and:

(1) Any of your members, but only with respect to their liability for your activities or activities they perform on your behalf, at your direction and within the scope of their duties.

(2) Any trustee or official; member of any Board, Council, Deaconry or Vestry; “Minister”; Sunday School Superintendent and any Sunday School teachers; or any student teachers teaching as part of their educational requirements; but only with respect to their duties as such.

(3) Any person(s) who are volunteer worker(s) for you, but only while acting at your direction and within the scope of their duties.⁴

Id. at GIG 0068–0069 (GIG 0178–0179).

The bodily injury and property damage liability insurance coverage provided by the CGLC applies to any bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence” that takes place in the “covered territory” and during the policy period, id. at GIG 0044 (GIG 0154), GIG 0059 (GIG 0169), subject to exclusions stated in the Form, id. at GIG 0059, et seq. (GIG 0169, et seq.). The word “occurrence” is defined in the CGLC Form to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Id. at GIG 0075 (GIG 0185). The only exclusion at issue in this action is an exclusion from CGLC coverage for bodily injury or property damage “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment to others of any ... [automobile] ... owned or operated by or rented or loaned to or hired by any insured” (“Automobile Exclusion”). Id. at GIG 0059 (GIG 0169), GIG 0062 (GIG 0172).

By an endorsement to the Form titled “Amendatory Endorsement, Hired and Nonowned Business Auto Coverage–Excess Liability and Medical Payments Insurance” (“Endorsement”), the liability insurance coverage otherwise provided by the CGLC was supplemented. Id. at GIG 0082 (GIG 0192).⁵ The Endorsement's insuring agreement was worded as follows:

1. Insuring Agreement of Coverage A (Section I) of the Commercial General Liability Coverage Form applies to all sums an “insured” legally must pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies, caused by an “accident” and resulting from the maintenance or use of a covered “auto.”

However we have no duty to defend “suits” for “bodily injury” or “property damage” not covered by this endorsement.

Id. The “Insuring Agreement of Coverage A (Section I) of the Commercial General Liability Coverage Form” to which the foregoing refers is the insuring agreement language set forth above as the insuring agreement of the CGLC.

The Endorsement gave the following description of the automobiles that qualified as a “covered ‘auto,’ ” as that term is used in the Endorsement's insuring agreement:

The following describes the “autos” that are covered “autos” under this endorsement.

1. HIRED “AUTOS” means those “autos” you lease, hire, rent or borrow. This does not include any “auto” you lease, hire, rent, or borrow from any of your employees or partners or members of their households.

2. NONOWNED “AUTOS” means those “autos” you do not own, lease, hire, rent or borrow that are used in connection with your business. This includes “autos” owned by your employees or partners or members of their households but only while used in your business or your personal affairs.

Id. at GIG 0082 (GIG 0192).

The term “Insured,” as it applied to any coverage added by the Endorsement, included Church, for any covered auto; any person who was an officer, clergy, or employee of Church, but only with respect to such person's duties as such; any person who was a volunteer for Church, but only while using an auto with Church's express knowledge and authorization, in the course of Church's business, and within the course of such persons's duties for church; and anyone else while using, with Church's permission, a covered auto hired or borrowed by Church, except the owner of the auto or anyone else from whom the auto was borrowed or hired. Id. at GIG 0085 (GIG 0195); GIG 0087 (GIG 0197) (“Insured”).

B. Facts Established Through Salgado's Testimony

The truthfulness of the oral deposition testimony Salgado gave in the underlying lawsuit, which is a part of the summary judgment evidence in the instant action, is unchallenged. He gave the following testimony:

At the time of the automobile collision in question in March 2006, Salgado was a member of, and a preacher and, perhaps, a supervisor or superintendent for, Church. His activities on behalf of Church included soliciting and collecting donations for Church. Even if he was not a superintendent for Church at the time of the automobile collision, he essentially was in charge of Church's activities in Texas. He kept part of the donations he collected for Church for use in providing indispensables, such as food and shelter, for him and his family. The part of the donations he kept is what he received in return for services he rendered on behalf of Church. Since 1983 he has been making his living preaching and collecting donations on behalf of Church; and, he is compensated by Church by being provided by Church with a place for him and his family to live and the material things that his family needs, such as clothing. He does routine repairs on property owned by Church in Texas, and uses a part of the contributions he collects for Church for payment of...