Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v. Richards
| Decision Date | 29 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-cv-02357-SHM-cgc,2:19-cv-02357-SHM-cgc |
| Citation | 439 F.Supp.3d 1026 |
| Parties | NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Michael RICHARDS and Jill Richards, Individually and as Natural Parents, Next of Kin, Administrator ad Litem and Personal Representative for Michael Connor Richards, Deceased, Loden Knotts, Kaitlin Martin, Cade Miller, Cole Miller, Gary Miller, Karen Miller, Sarah Holloway, Matthew Galloway, and Donald A. Giamanco, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Melanie M. Stewart, Stewart Law Group, PLLC, Germantown, TN, for Plaintiff.
Daniel Alan Seward, Law Office of Daniel Seward, William B. Ryan, Donati Law Firm, LLP, Cameron M. Watson, Spicer Rudstrom PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America's ("Nationwide") October 1, 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26.) Defendants Michael Richards, Jill Richards, Loden Knotts, Kaitlin Martin, Cade Miller, Cole Miller, Gary Miller, Karen Miller, and Sarah Holloway responded on November 7, 2019.1 (ECF No. 30.) For the following reasons, as to the second issue on which Nationwide seeks a declaratory judgment -- whether Defendants are entitled to damages for emotional distress and mental anguish -- Nationwide's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of standing. As to the first issue on which Nationwide seeks a declaratory judgment -- whether Michael and Jill Richards are eligible to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from Nationwide -- Nationwide's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
This declaratory judgment action arises from an automobile accident. On January 7, 2018, a vehicle driven by Donald A. Giamanco crashed into a 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe occupied by Michael Connor Richards, Loden Knotts, Kaitlin Martin, Cade Miller, Cole Miller, Sarah Holloway, and Matthew Galloway. (ECF No. 26-2 at 1-2.) The Tahoe was insured by Nationwide under a policy issued to Gary and Karen Miller (the "Miller Policy"). (ECF No. 30-1 ¶ 1.) The Miller Policy was issued in Tennessee. (Id. ) It provides uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") bodily injury policy limits of $300,000 each person, $300,000 each occurrence. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Tort suits have been filed in this Court against Donald A. Giamanco by Michael and Jill Richards, individually and as representatives of decedent Michael Connor Richards (Case No. 2:19-cv-02019); by Kaitlin Martin, Cade Miller, Cole Miller, and Sarah Holloway (Case No. 2:19-cv-02020); and by Loden Knotts (Case No. 2:19-cv-02002). Matthew Galloway has filed a tort suit against Giamanco in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee (Case No. CT-0030-19).
In this declaratory judgment action, Nationwide asks the Court to determine the scope of Nationwide's liability to pay UM benefits to Defendants under the Miller Policy. (ECF No. 26.) Nationwide seeks a declaratory judgment on two distinct issues. (Id. )
The first issue affects only Defendants Michael and Jill Richards ("the Richards"). The Richards have recovered $300,000 in UM benefits resulting from the death of their son Michael Connor Richards in the January 7, 2018 accident under two policies issued to the Richards in Virginia -- $250,000 under a Liberty Mutual Insurance Company policy and $50,000 under a GEICO policy. (ECF No. 30-1 ¶¶ 4-5.) Nationwide asks the Court to declare that the Richards have received the full amount of UM benefits for bodily injury recoverable under Tennessee law and are ineligible to recover UM benefits for bodily injury under the Miller Policy. (ECF No. 26-2 at 3-5.)
The second issue affects Defendants Michael Richards, Jill Richards, Loden Knotts, Kaitlin Martin, Cade Miller, Cole Miller, Sarah Holloway, and Matthew Galloway. In their tort complaints, these Defendants claim damages for mental and emotional distress. (See Case No. 2:19-cv-02002, ECF No. 1 ¶ 17; Case No. 2:19-cv-02019, ECF No. 1 ¶ 24; Case No. 2:19-cv-02020, ECF No. 1 ¶ 30.) The Miller Policy provides that "[Nationwide] will pay compensatory damages which an ‘insured’ is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ because of ... ‘bodily injury’ sustained by an ‘insured’ and caused by an accident." (ECF No. 30-1 ¶ 6.) It defines "bodily injury" as follows:
"Bodily injury" means bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death that results. "Bodily injury" does not include emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury unless the direct result of bodily harm.
(Id. ) Nationwide asks the Court to declare that Defendants may not recover UM benefits under the Miller Policy "for any emotional distress and mental anguish claimed by any of the Defendants, for any claims arising out of the [January 7, 2018] automobile accident...." (ECF No. 26.)
Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). "The Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction." Heydon v. MediaOne of Se. Mich., Inc., 327 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir. 2003). "The Act only provides courts with discretion to fashion a remedy." Id. "A federal court accordingly ‘must have jurisdiction already under some other federal statute’ before a plaintiff can ‘invok[e] the Act.’ " Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590, 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Toledo v. Jackson, 485 F.3d 836, 839 (6th Cir. 2007) ).
The Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nationwide is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. (ECF No. 33 ¶ 1.) Michael Richards, Jill Richards, and Kaitlin Martin are resident citizens of Virginia. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 5.) Loden Knotts and Matthew Galloway are resident citizens of Mississippi. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Cade Miller, Cole Miller, Gary Miller, Karen Miller, and Sarah Holloway are resident citizens of Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 5; ECF No. 33 ¶ 2.) Donald A. Giamanco is a resident citizen of Missouri. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) The parties are completely diverse.
Nationwide alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. ¶ 1.) "[T]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith." St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938) ; see also Charvat v. NMP, LLC, 656 F.3d 440, 447 (6th Cir. 2011). The requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
In a diversity action, the choice-of-law rules of the forum state apply. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) ; Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 459 (6th Cir. 2009). "In Tennessee, absent a valid choice of law provision, the rights and obligations under an insurance policy are governed by the law of the state where the insurance policy was ‘made and delivered.’ " Charles Hampton's A-1 Signs, Inc. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 225 S.W.3d 482, 485 n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 493 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tenn. 1973) ); see also In re Estate of Davis, 184 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) ( ) (citation omitted).
The Miller Policy was issued in Tennessee. (ECF No. 30-1 ¶ 2.) It contains a choice-of-law clause providing that "[t]he contract law of the state where the policy was issued governs the interpretation of this contract, except for the Mutual Policy Conditions and Proxy, which shall be governed by the insuring company's state of domicile." (ECF No. 26-3 at 35.) Tennessee substantive law governs the Miller Policy.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court must grant a party's motion for 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). The moving party must show that the nonmoving party, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) ; Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2018).
When confronted with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "A genuine dispute exists when the plaintiff presents significant probative evidence on which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for her." EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). The nonmoving party must do more than simply " ‘show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’ " Lossia v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., 895 F.3d 423, 428 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ).
Although summary judgment must be used carefully, it "is an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action[,] rather than a disfavored procedural shortcut." FDIC v. Jeff Miller Stables, 573 F.3d 289, 294 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
"Standing has three elements." Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607, 614 (6th Cir. 2008). "First,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Austin v. Alexander
-
Progressive Haw. Ins. Corp. v. Garza
...involving the automobile accident in state court. Thus, the first sub-factor does not apply. See Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v. Richards, 439 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1036 (W.D. Tenn. 2020) ("Where, as here, there is no underlying state action that would be affected by a ruling on the fede......
-
Owners Ins. Co. v. KW Real Estate Ventures
...policy was issued unless contradicted by the parties' intent. (Id.); see also Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v. Richards, 439 F.Supp.3d 1026, 1031 (W.D. Tenn. 2020) (“In Tennessee, absent a valid choice of law provision, the rights and obligations under an insurance policy are governed......
-
Bradley v. Viking Ins. Co.
...imposed by an insurance contract satisfies Article III's case and controversy requirement."); Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v. Richards,439 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1033 (W.D. Tenn. 2020) (holding that insurer had standing to seek declaratory judgment that policy did not provide UM coverage ......