Luckey v. Balboa Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 09-1338 (PLF). |
| Citation | 685 F.Supp.2d 8 |
| Parties | Michael X. LUCKEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kelly A. Luckey, Plaintiff, v. BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Michael X. Luckey, Stafford, VA, pro se.
Manuel Robert Geraldo, Robinson & Geraldo, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Leslie Paul Machado, Robert Francis Reklaitis, LeClair Ryan, Washington, DC for Defendants.
This matter, which was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1441(a), is a declaratory judgment action involving the scope of coverage of two insurance policies issued by defendant Balboa Insurance Company ("Balboa"). Now pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff‘s complaint against Balboa.
The complaint filed by plaintiff Michael X. Luckey originally named three defendants in addition to Balboa: Sukai PromJackson, the holder of the Balboa insurance policies; John L. Prom, as the personal representative of the estate of Anthony J. Prom; and ACE Private Risk Services ("ACE").1 Ms. Prom-Jackson, Balboa, and ACE moved to dismiss the complaint against them on July 27, 2009. While that motion was pending, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After careful consideration of the parties' papers and the entire record in this case the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Ms. Prom-Jackson and ACE by minute order dated January 15, 2010. By the same minute order, the Court sua sponte dismissed the plaintiffs complaint against John Prom. See Best v Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 331 (D.C.Cir.1994) (). Because plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations whatsoever against Ms. Prom-Jackson, John Prom, Anthony Prom, or ACE, plaintiffs complaint does not "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face" against any of these defendants. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 331. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint against them under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The defendants' motion to dismiss thus has been resolved with regard to all defendants except Balboa. For the reasons explained in this Opinion, the Court now will deny the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Balboa, deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and grant defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Balboa.2
On March 16, 2008, a tragic automobile accident resulted in the deaths of Kelly A. Luckey and Anthony Prom, a 28 year-old aspiring chef. See Pl's SMF ¶ 13. The accident occurred while Anthony Prom was driving a car owned and insured by Ms. Luckey. Id. ¶ 15.3 The car involved in the accident was not insured under any insurance policy issued by Balboa to Sukai Prom-Jackson. Id. ¶ 16.
Beginning in July 2007 and until the accident in March 2008, Anthony Prom lived in a house owned by his aunt, Sukai Prom-Jackson, at 1208 Tewkesbury Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012 ("the Washington, D.C. house"). See Pl's SMF ¶¶ 11, 12; Prom Aff. ¶2, Fofana Aff. ¶1. Ms. Prom-Jackson testified in her deposition that she did not require Mr. Prom to pay rent for living in her house because he was working to establish himself as a sous chef and he was struggling to pay other bills. See Prom-Jackson Dep. at 36-37, 43, 55. Despite the fact that Ms. Prom-Jackson did not charge Mr. Prom rent, she testified in her deposition that she did not share a close relationship with him, did not regularly speak to him, only saw him at family events, and did not know personal things about his life. See id. at 29, 30.
Ms. Prom-Jackson also owned a house at 17510 Ashton Forest Terrace, Sandy Spring, Maryland 20860. See Pl's SMF ¶¶ 1, 8, 9. Ms. Prom-Jackson lived in the Washington, D.C. house with her son and her husband, who is now deceased, until 2004, when she began living exclusively in the house she owned in Maryland. See Prom-Jackson Dep. at 19, 31-34. Ms. Prom-Jackson testified in her deposition that she rarely visited the Washington, D.C. house after 2004, but that she maintained a homeowner's insurance policy on the house from Travelers Insurance. See Travelers Home Policy. This insurance policy is not at issue in this case. Anthony Prom and Ms. Prom-Jackson never lived in the Washington, D.C. house during the same period of time. See Pl's SMF ¶¶11, 12; Prom-Jackson Dep. at 19, 31-34.
In October 2002, Ms. Prom-Jackson sponsored Ida Fofana, her distant cousin from Gambia, to receive a G5 domestic visa. See Pl's Sep. SMF ¶ 5. A G5 domestic visa is issued to the "non-immigrant... household employees of representatives and staff members of international organizations." Cuco Aff. ¶ 4. Under federal immigration law, a G5 domestic employee must "be employed exclusively by the sponsoring employer" and can perform only "household duties" for that employer. Id. ¶ 5.
In 2002, Ms. Fofana began living at Ms. Prom-Jackson's Washington, D.C. house and working as a G5 domestic employee. Pl's Sep. SMF ¶ 5. It is undisputed that Ms. Fofana performed domestic work from October 2002 to June 2004 at the Washington, D.C. house, while Ms. Prom-Jackson and her son lived there; this work "includ[ed] but [was] not limited to housekeeping, house maintenance, shopping, childcare, cooking, cleaning, laundry and errands." Id. Although the parties dispute whether Ms. Fofana continued to perform domestic work at the Washington, D.C. house after June 2004 when Ms. PromJackson and her son moved to the Maryland house, this fact is not material to the Court's analysis. Regardless of this dispute, it is clear from the record that Ms. Fofana and Anthony Prom both lived in the Washington, D.C. house owned by Ms. Prom-Jackson from July 2007 until the accident in March 2008. See Pl's SMF ¶¶ 11, 12; Prom Aff. ¶ 2; Fofana Aff. ¶ 1.
Balboa is an insurance company that issued a series of insurance policies to Ms Prom-Jackson. See Pl's SMF ¶¶1, 5. Balboa issued an automobile insurance policy to Ms. Prom-Jackson, at 17510 Ashton Forest Terrace, Sandy Spring, Maryland 20860, for a policy period from May 21, 2007, to May 21, 2008 (the "automobile policy"). See id. ¶ 1. The automobile policy insured one car, a 2002 Honda Accord, and insured two drivers, Ms. Prom-Jackson and her son, M'Buram. Id. ¶ 2, 3.
The terms of the automobile policy extended coverage beyond the named insured individuals to Ms. Prom-Jackson's family members if they were "residents of her household." See Pl's SMF ¶4. The relevant language provided:
1. We Insure You
You are an insured person under any coverage in your Auto Policy. This includes your spouse if he or she lives with you.
. We Insure Your Family Members.
Your family members are also insured persons under every coverage in this policy. This includes all of the following people, but only if they are residents of your household:
• your children;
• your other relatives; and
• other people under 21 years of age, such as wards, who are in the care of you or a family member.
Id.; see also Automobile Policy at 2 (emphasis in original).
Balboa also issued an umbrella insurance policy to Ms. Prom-Jackson for the same period, from May 21, 2007, to May 21, 2008 ("the umbrella policy"). See Pl's SMF ¶ 5. Like the automobile policy, the umbrella policy was issued to Ms. PromJackson at 17510 Ashton Forest Terrace Sandy Spring, Maryland 20860. Id. ¶6. The umbrella policy also extended coverage to Ms. Prom-Jackson's family members:
WHO WE INSURE
Under your Personal Umbrella Policy, insured person includes you, your family members and...
Family member means any of these people, but only if they are residents of your household:
• your children
• your other relatives
• other people under 21 years of age, such as wards, who are in the care of you or a family member
Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis in original); see also Umbrella Policy at 4, 8. In its terms and conditions section, the umbrella policy defined "residence" as "a one, two, three or four-family house, condominium, cooperative unit, apartment or any other type of residence you own or rent to live in." See Umbrella Policy at 6. There was no similar definition in the automobile insurance policy-
As noted, the Court previously granted Sukai Prom-Jackson and ACE's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it sua sponte dismissed the case against defendant John Prom for the same reason. Defendants also originally moved to dismiss the case against Balboa on the theory that District of Columbia law does not allow a direct action against an insurer by a party who is not in privity with the insurance carrier. See Defs' MTD at 3. In response, plaintiff argued that Maryland law applied to this action and permits declaratory judgment actions by a non-insured party against an insurer. See Pl's Opp. to Defs' MTD at 8-9. Defendants conceded this argument in their reply brief and, as a result, they are "no longer contending that the Luckey Estate cannot bring this declaratory judgment action [against Balboa.]" See Def. Reply MTD at 2. The Court therefore denies defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Balboa because plaintiff has properly stated a claim against it.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants have moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial