Maxum Indem. Co. v. Kaur

• Decision Date: 11 December 2018
• Docket Number: 1:17-cv-01467-LJO-JLT
• Citation: Maxum Indem. Co. v. Kaur, 356 F.Supp.3d 987 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
• Parties: MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Baldwinder KAUR, d/b/a Safeway Truck Driving School, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

356 F.Supp.3d 987

MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.Baldwinder KAUR, d/b/a Safeway Truck Driving School, et al., Defendants.

1:17-cv-01467-LJO-JLT

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed December 11, 2018

Filed December 12, 2018

Irene K. Yesowitch, Theresa Mae Rutledge, Cozen O'Connor, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Baldwinder Kaur, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

John Charles Carpenter, Sark Ohanian, Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Eric Laeson Zalud, PHV, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Cleveland, OH, Kelly E. Mulrane, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Columbus, OH, Michael A. KaiaYoung Wooldridge Bakersfield, CA for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 50)

Lawrence J. O'Neill, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

I.INTRODUCTION

This is an insurance coverage dispute between PlaintiffMaxum Indemnity Company("Maxum") and DefendantBaldwinder Kaur, doing business as ("dba") Safeway Truck Driving School ("Kaur"), regarding coverage for claims asserted against Kaur in an action filed in January 2017 and currently pending in California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.On October 31, 2017, Maxum brought this diversity jurisdiction action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 against Kaur, and named several other Defendants that are all parties in the state court proceeding.ECF No. 1.¹Maxum alleged two counts against Defendant Kaur seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, asking the Court to find that Maxum has 1) no duty to defend and 2) no duty to indemnify Kaur in the state court action.Id.

On September 26, 2018, Maxum filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 against all Defendants.ECF No. 50.Kaur filed an opposition on October 15, 2018, ECF No. 52, as did Sangam, Onkar, Nijjar, and Bristow collectively (together with Kaur, "Defendants").ECF No. 51.Maxum filed a reply on October 22, 2018.ECF No. 53.The issue presented on this summary judgment motion is whether a policy exclusion or a premises limitation in the Maxum Policy precludes insurance coverage in the underlying state court litigation.The Court finds it appropriate to rule on the motion without oral argument.SeeLocalRule 230(g).Having considered the parties' briefing and the relevant law, the Court issues the following order.

II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties agree on all material facts as submitted in the joint statement of undisputed facts.ECFNo. 50-2, ("UMF").²

On January 4, 2017, the Estate of Baldjinder Singh filed a complaint in San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1700068 in connection with the death of Baljinder Singh(the "Underlying Action").ECFNo. 50-4, ("Ex.A").Baldjinder Singh died in a single-vehicle, tractor-trailer accident on December 22, 2015 in New Mexico.UMF 1-2.Joshi Sangam was the driver of the tractor-trailer at the time of the accident.UMF 5.Kaur is alleged to have trained Sangam in the operation of the tractor-trailer.UMF 5.Singh's estate and his parents, Gursharan Singh and Paramjit Kaur, sued Sangam and Kaur, along with Onkar, Nijjar, Bristow, and Sky.Ex. A.³ The Underlying Action alleges three causes of action in connection with the death of Singh against the state courtdefendants for 1) negligence (wrongful death), 2) negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention of unfit employee (wrongful death), and 3) survival cause of action for the injuries sustained by Singh.UMF 4; Ex. A.

Maxum issued PolicyNo. BDG-0064064-04, a commercial general liability ("CGL") policy, to Defendant Kaur, d/b/a Safeway Truck Driving School, effective for the policy period June 14, 2015 to June 14, 2016("Maxum Policy" or the "Policy").UMF 6;ECFNo. 50-5, ("Ex. B");ECFNo. 50-3 at ¶ 3.The Policy was in effect on the date of the subject accident.UMF 6.The Policy had liability limits of $ 1,000,000 per occurrence and $ 2,000,000 in the aggregate.Ex. Bat 22.⁴The Policy's "Coverage A" Insuring Agreement provides that:

a.[Maxum] 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.[Maxum] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages.However, [Maxum] will 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...

...

b. This insurance applies to ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ only if:

(1) The ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ is caused by an ‘occurrence’ that takes place in the ‘coverage territory’; ...

UMF 7;Ex. Bat 24."Occurrence" means "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions."Ex. Bat 37.The "coverage territory" includes anywhere in the United States.Ex. Bat 36.The Maxum Policy contains certain policy exclusions.Ex. Bat 6-7.⁵

The Policy exclusion at issue here is contained in an endorsement and provides:

EXCLUSION – AUTO

[¶]

This insurance does not apply to:

g. Aircraft, Auto, or Watercraft

‘Bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, chartering, renting, entrustment to others, ‘loading or unloading’ of any aircraft, ‘auto’ or watercraft, including the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of, or failure to warn, anyone in connection with the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, chartering, renting, or entrustment to others of any aircraft, ‘auto’ or watercraft.

UMF 8, 10-11;Ex. Bat 54.⁶The Maxum Policy defines "auto" as a "land motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment."UMF 9;Ex. Bat 35.

The policy also contains a premises limitation titled "LIMITATION OF COVERAGE TO DESIGNATED PREMISES OR PROJECT " which provides in part that "[t]his insurance applies only to ‘bodily injury’... arising out of: 1.The ownership, maintenance or use of the premises shown in the Schedule ...."UMF 13;Ex. Bat 52.The premises identified in the Schedule include two locations in California.UMF 14;Ex. Bat 52.For the purposes of this motion, the parties do not dispute that the identified premises were used to train student drivers including Joshi Sangam.UMF 15.

Maxum undertook Kaur's defense in the Underlying Action with a full reservation of rights.Maxum brought this action for declaratory relief and sought summary adjudication on the ground that there was no potential for insurance coverage under the CGL policy it issued to Kaur, and correspondingly seeking a judicial declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Kaur in the Underlying Action under the Maxum Policy.

III.LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.Seeid. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505;see alsoReeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105(2000).But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.A fact is "material" if its proof or disproof is essential to an element of a plaintiff's case.Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).A factual dispute is "genuine""if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505."Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial."Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986)(internal citation omitted).

The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial.Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is some genuine issue for trial in order to defeat the motion.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

IV.DISCUSSION

Maxum contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the Policy does not provide coverage for the Underlying Action based on two separate grounds: 1) the Maxum Policy's "auto" exclusion specifically precludes coverage for the claims in the Underlying Action; and 2) the Maxum Policy limits coverage to certain premises and the subject accident did not occur in the same state as the insured premises.ECFNo. 50-1at 2.As a result, Maxum contends that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Kaur in the Underlying Action and it is entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2201 saying as much.

Defendant Kaur, who is not represented by counsel, filed an opposition arguing that summary judgment should be denied.ECF No. 52.However, his opposition does not address Maxum's arguments concerning the interpretation of the insurance policy language in connection with the Underlying Action and instead...