Motsinger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4:11-01734-JMC |
| Parties | Carlotta Motsinger, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
The instant matter is before the court pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Specifically, Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide") filed a counterclaim to Plaintiff Carlotta Motsinger's ("Motsinger") claims for insurance bad faith, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and abuse of process, seeking a declaration that Motsinger cannot stack her underinsured coverages under her Nationwide policies because she is not a Class I insured. (ECF No. 57.) The parties agreed to proceed with a bench trial on Nationwide's declaratory judgment counterclaim prior to proceeding with a jury trial on Motsinger's claims against Nationwide. (See ECF No. 115.)
The court conducted the aforementioned bench trial on November 12, 2013. (See ECF No. 147.) At the conclusion of the parties' presentations, Motsinger moved for directed verdict, which motion the court took under advisement. (ECF Nos. 148, 149.) After carefully considering all testimony, exhibits, and arguments of counsel presented at the bench trial of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, and in consideration of the applicable law, the court concludes that Motsinger does not qualify as a Class I insured. Therefore, Motsinger may not "stack" her underinsured motorist coverage as she has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was the common law spouse of WilliamWorkman ("Workman") on November 10, 2008, the date Motsinger was injured in an automobile accident. Accordingly, Motsinger's motion for directed verdict is DENIED.
In support of this conclusion, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 521:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Motsinger is a resident of Horry County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 56 at 1 ¶ 1.)
2. Nationwide is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio and is qualified to do business in South Carolina and maintains agents and servants in the State of South Carolina for the purposes of carrying out business. (ECF No. 56 at 1 ¶¶ 2, 3; ECF No. 57 at 1 ¶¶ 3, 4.)
3. Nationwide provides automobile insurance to Motsinger under policy number 61 39 K 808483. (Def.'s Bench Trial Exs. 8, 9.) Three vehicles are covered under this policy. (Id.)
4. Nationwide also provides automobile coverage to Motsinger under policy number 61 39 M 030427. (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 9.) One vehicle is covered under this policy. (Id.)
5. Both of the above-mentioned Nationwide insurance policies carry policy limits of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence in liability coverage and $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence in underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. (Def.'s Bench Trial Exs. 8, 9.)
6. Motsinger testified that she had been married twice before meeting Workman and she obtained marriage licenses in both of her prior marriages. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.2) Motsinger further testified that she divorced her second husband, Randall Motsinger, on December 19, 2003. (Id.)
7. Motsinger testified that she purchased a home at 4365 Bay Berry Drive, Little River, South Carolina in June of 2004. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
8. Motsinger testified that she met Workman in November of 2006. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
9. Motsinger testified that in early 2007, Workman moved into her residence at 4365 Bayberry Drive, Little River, South Carolina. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Motsinger testified that she did not view Workman as a tenant on her property. (Id.) Motsinger further testified that she has not lived separately from Workman since he moved into her home. (Id.) Workman testified that he has lived with Motsinger since moving into her home in May or June of 2007. (Workman Bench Trial Test.)
10. Motsinger testified that on November 9, 2007, she and Workman reached an agreement to consider themselves married, which agreement included an exchange of rings. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Workman testified that he and Motsinger decided that, since their relationship was going so well, they should go ahead and consider themselves married and enjoy each other for the rest of their lives. (Workman Bench Trial Test.) Workman further testified that he and Motsinger exchanged wedding rings on November 9, 2007, not engagement rings.(Id.)
11. Motsinger testified that she and Workman did not consider applying for a marriage license in South Carolina or any other state. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Motsinger testified that she thought the act of obtaining a marriage license was cold and impersonal and she wanted a more personal ceremony instead of being married in front of a judge and two witnesses. (Id.)
12. Motsinger testified that she and Workman memorialized their agreement to be married at a Bonefish Grill restaurant in front of Motsinger's children and grandchild on November 16, 2007. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Motsinger offered into evidence photographs of the November 16, 2007 event at Bonefish Grill. (Pl.'s Bench Trial Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) The photographs show Workman presenting a second ring to Motsinger and Workman wearing a ring on his left hand on the finger customarily reserved for wedding rings. (Id.) Motsinger and Workman both testified that they consider November 16 to be their anniversary date. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test; Workman Bench Trial Test.) Motsinger further testified that she has worn her rings continuously since receiving them from Workman. (Id.)
13. After the November 16, 2007 event, Motsinger testified that she and Workman introduced each other to other people as husband and wife. (Id.)
14. In early 2008, Motsinger filed a federal tax return for the 2007 tax year in which she chose "head of household" as her filing status. (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 3.) Motsinger testified that she chose the head of household filing status because she was concerned about whether the federal government would recognize her common law marriage to Workman. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
15. In early 2008, Workman filed a federal tax return for the 2007 tax year in whichhis filing status was identified as "single." (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 6.) Motsinger prepared Workman's 2007 tax return. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.; Workman Bench Trial Test.) Motsinger testified that she chose the single filing status for Workman because she was concerned about whether the federal government would recognize their common law marriage. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Workman testified that he chose the single filing status on his tax return because not all agencies recognize common law marriage. (Workman Bench Trial Test.)
16. On November 10, 2008, while Nationwide policy numbers 61 39 K 808483 and 61 39 M 030427 issued to Motsinger were in full force, Motsinger was injured in an automobile accident where she was a passenger in a vehicle owned and being driven by Workman. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.; Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 12; Workman Bench Trial Test.) As a result of the injuries sustained by Motsinger in the November 10, 2008 automobile accident, she sought treatment from various medical providers. (Id.)
17. At the time of the accident on November 10, 2008, Motsinger testified that she and Workman did not jointly own any real or personal property. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.) Their names did not appear jointly on any utility bills or financial accounts. (Id.) They did not have any joint bank accounts and did not have any children together. (Id.) Motsinger and Workman were not listed on each other's respective automobile insurance policies. (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 8.) Motsinger's Nationwide policies, in fact, showed that she was still married to Randall Motsinger on the date of the accident and that he was a named insured. (Id.) Motsinger testified that she had asked Nationwide to remove Randall Motsinger's name from her policy on many occasions. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
18. On the date of the accident, the emergency room records from Grand Strand Regional Medical Center show that Motsinger's marital status was identified as "single." (Def.'sBench Trial Ex. 13.) Motsinger testified that she identified herself as single because some government agencies do not recognize common law marriage. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
19. On November 17, 2008, on a signed patient information form for Strand Orthopaedic Consultants, Motsinger stated that her marital status was "single" and left the section concerning spousal information blank. (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 15.) Motsinger testified that she did not identify Workman as her spouse because she was not sure that government agencies recognized common law marriage. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
20. On November 21, 2008, Motsinger entered Grand Strand Regional Medical Center for outpatient surgery on her wrist. The patient information forms for Motsinger again identified her marital status as "single." (Def.'s Bench Trial Ex. 14.) Workman was listed as the "person to notify." (Id.) In the section of the form which asked what Workman's relationship to Motsinger was, the form states "Other Relationship." (Id.) The intervention activity forms for Grand Strand Regional Medical Center state that Motsinger was accompanied that day by her "fiancé" and that she was later discharged "home with fiancé and son." (Def.'s Bench Trial Exs. 16, 17.) Motsinger testified that she did not know how fiancé was placed on the intervention activity forms. (Motsinger Bench Trial Test.)
21. On December 5, 2008, Motsinger again indicated on a patient information form for Strand Orthopaedic Consultants that her...
To continue reading
Request your trial