Laboss Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 26 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 14-cv-62517-CV-GAYLES |
| Citation | 188 F.Supp.3d 1320 |
| Parties | Laboss Transportation Services, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Sergio R. Casiano, Jr., Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez & Silver, PL, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff.
Jerome Alan Pivnik, The Pivnik Law Firm, Miami, FL, for Defendant.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the parties' written submissions, the record, and the applicable law and has heard argument from the parties. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
This is an action for declaratory decree seeking to establish the rights and obligations of the parties under a commercial automobile insurance policy, number FHP 0725551-0 ("Policy"), issued by Defendant Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York ("Global") to Plaintiff Laboss Transportation Services, Inc. ("Laboss"). The Policy was in effect from March 12, 2014, through March 12, 2015. Specifically, Laboss seeks liability insurance coverage for injuries and damage to passenger William Wilson, whose wheelchair flipped backwards within Laboss's van as the van departed from a red light on March 17, 2014. The parties agree that the issues present a pure legal question. [ECF No. 71 at 1]. The facts are generally undisputed.
Laboss is a Florida company engaged in the non-emergency transportation of clients to and from hospitals, clinics, and homes. On or before March 12, 2014, Laboss, through its insurance agent Lucy Singer, applied for a business automobile policy with Global. In the application, Laboss listed seven drivers, including Errol Ward, the driver of the van in which Wilson was injured. Along with the application, Laboss's insurance agent submitted driving records for the listed drivers. Global concluded that Ward was not an eligible driver under the proposed policy based on his driving record, including a suspension with at least one accident within three years. Global informed Singer that the policy would not be issued with Ward as a driver. That same day, Singer resubmitted Laboss's application, this time with Ward's name crossed out—meaning that Ward was no longer submitted as a listed driver for Laboss. Relying on the representations in the application, Global issued the Policy to Laboss effective that same day, March 12, 2014.
On March 13, 2014, Ward cleared his driver license suspension and had his driving privileges reinstated. He subsequently resumed driving patients for Laboss, although he had not yet been added as a listed driver to the Policy. Laboss asserts that it advised Singer on March 14, 2014, that Ward's license had been reinstated and requested that he be added to the Global policy three days prior to Wilson's accident. However, Singer did not formally request that Global add Ward to the policy until after Wilson's accident.
On March 17, 2014, Ward was driving Wilson, a Laboss client, in a van—a "covered auto" under the Policy—when Wilson's wheelchair flipped backwards as Ward accelerated the van from a stop at a red light at the intersection of I-95 and Sheridan Street in Hollywood, Florida. Prior to the accident, Ward had fastened Wilson's wheelchair into the van using the Q'Straint system for which he had previously received training. The following day, Singer requested that Global include Ward on Laboss's policy, though she did not reveal the March 17 accident to Global. That same day, Global issued an endorsement accepting Ward as a driver on the Laboss policy.
Later that week and the following week, both Wilson's attorney and Laboss gave notice to Global of Wilson's accident. After investigating the claim, Global determined that there was no coverage under the Policy because "there was no automobile accident" and that the claimed loss was "not a covered event." [ECF No. 28-1 at 68]. Global never rescinded or canceled Laboss's Policy, nor did it return any portion of the premium paid for the Policy. In fact, Global renewed the Policy for the subsequent policy period beginning on March 12, 2015, knowing that Ward was one of Laboss's drivers. Prior to the filing of this action in November 2014, Wilson's attorney made a verbal demand on Laboss for compensation in the amount of the $500,000 Policy limit. [ECF No. 11-1 at ¶ 6].1 The Policy was subsequently canceled in May 2015.
The relevant provisions of the Policy provide as follows:
"The court shall 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). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "[T]he plain language of Rule 56 [a] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
A "genuine" issue is present when a reasonable trier of fact, viewing all of the record evidence, could rationally find in favor of the non-moving party in light of his burden of proof. Harrison v. Culliver , 746 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir.2014). "An issue of fact is ‘material’ if, under the applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case." Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co. , 357 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (11th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). The Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. SEC v. Monterosso , 756 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir.2014). However, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, "the nonmoving party must offer more than a mere scintilla of evidence for its position; indeed, the nonmoving party must make a showing sufficient to permit the jury to reasonably find on its behalf." Urquilla – Diaz v. Kaplan Univ. , 780 F.3d 1039, 1050 (11th Cir.2015).
In its Motion, Global argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the following bases: a) Laboss misrepresented a material fact in its application for coverage under the Policy; b) the March 17, 2014 incident was not an "accident" arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle covered under the Policy; c) even if the incident can be considered an "accident," the failure to properly restrain Wilson's wheelchair should be considered "professional services" excluded under the policy; and finally d) there is no lawsuit or "claim" against Global, so this declaratory relief is premature and inappropriate. The Court finds each of these arguments unconvincing.
Laboss argues that Ward was a permissive driver under the Policy at the time of the March 17 accident and, therefore, it is immaterial that Ward was not a listed driver at that time. The Court looks to the Policy for that determination. "Under Florida law, insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning." Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 913 So.2d 528, 532 (Fla.2005). "[I]f a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms whether it is a basic policy provision or an exclusionary provision." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "If the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and another limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous." Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 969 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla.2007) (quoting Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson , 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000) ). "Ambiguities in insurance contracts are interpreted against the insurer and in favor of the insured." Id. (citing Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co. , 845 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.2003) ). "A provision is not ambiguous simply because it is complex or requires analysis." Id. (citing Swire Pac. Holdings , 845 So.2d at 165 ).
The Policy here clearly and unambiguously defines its "insured" as (1) Laboss for any covered auto, and (2) anyone else using a covered auto with Laboss's permission. See [ECF No. 29-1 at 32]. In fact, Global concedes that the Policy covers permissive drivers. See [ECF No. 41 at 43–44]. Based on the Policy's broad definition, Ward qualified as an insured under the Policy at the time of the accident as he drove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnes Funeral Home, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...something that, as Allstate alleges, any 16 year old (with no training) could do.Allstate also cites Laboss Transportation Services, Inc. v. Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York , a case from Florida in which the court found that a bus driver who was trained to secure wheelchairs on......