Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company v. Weis
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:19-cv-04108-HLT |
| Citation | 561 F.Supp.3d 1124 |
| Parties | PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Rudi WEIS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Christopher M. Harper, Heather Hatley, John Lavelle Mullen, Franke Schultz & Mullen, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Bruce A. Moothart, Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant Michael Weis.
Court T. Kennedy, Gates Shields Ferguson Swall Hammond, PA, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants Keith Kuritz, Denise Gharst-Adkins, Estate of Tristen Kuritz.
David A. Hoffman, Hoffman Law, LLC, Overland Park, KS, James H. Thompson, Jr., Thompson Law Offices, PC, North Kansas City, MO, for Defendant Samantha Duckett.
Ron D. Martinek, Law Offices of James A. Bingley, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Amber Stitch, Brenda Allensworth.
This is a declaratory-judgment action. Plaintiff Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company contends that it does not owe insurance coverage for an accident that occurred on February 3, 2019. Defendants are various individuals who were involved in the accident. Progressive and Defendant Samantha Duckett both move for summary judgment on essentially the same issue: whether Missouri law requires the policy to provide coverage for a U-Haul truck involved in the accident. The Court finds that the unambiguous policy does not cover the U-Haul and Missouri law does not require additional language to be read into the policy. Accordingly, Progressive's motion is granted and Duckett's motion is denied.
The Court considers the following uncontroverted facts. On February 3, 2019, Michael Weis ("Michael") was driving a U-Haul truck on Interstate 70 in Leavenworth County, Kansas, when he was involved in a collision with several other vehicles. The accident resulted in bodily injury and property damage and has spawned at least two state-court actions in addition to this case. Duckett was among those injured in the accident and now claims the policy provides coverage for the accident. The U-Haul was a box truck owned by U-Haul Co. of Arizona and had been rented by Rudi Weis ("Rudi"), Michael's son, to move some property from Columbia, Missouri, to Topeka, Kansas.
The U-Haul was a self-propelled vehicle designed for use on the highway. It had a gross vehicle rating of 14,500 pounds and had a passenger cab at the front of the truck and cargo area that was accessible by a door at the rear of the truck. The cargo area and the cab were physically separated by a wall.
Progressive issued an automotive liability policy to Rudi effective November 15, 2018, to May 15, 2019. Progressive issued the policy to Rudi using a Missouri address. Rudi was the named insured and the only driver on the policy. The only vehicles listed on the policy were a 2012 Volkswagen Golf and a 1999 Ford truck, neither of which were involved in the accident.
Under the policy, Progressive agreed to "pay damages for bodily injury and property damage for which an insured person becomes legally responsible because of an accident."1 The policy includes the following definitions:
The policy also states: "If any provision of this policy fails to conform to the statutes of the state listed on your application as your residence, the provision shall be deemed amended to conform to such statutes."
Progressive filed this declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that there is no coverage under the policy because the U-Haul does not meet the definition of "auto" or "covered auto," and therefore Michael does not meet the definition of "insured person." Doc. 71 at 3. Michael and Duckett argue that the policy does provide coverage because the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and Missouri public policy mandate coverage.4
Summary judgment is appropriate if 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 bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate that genuine issues remain for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In applying this standard, courts view the facts and any reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co. , 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir. 1994). "An issue of material fact is genuine if a ‘reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ " Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ).
Both Progressive and Duckett move for summary judgment.5 The primary issue raised by both motions is whether the policy covers the U-Haul. Ultimately, it is the burden of Michael and Duckett to establish coverage. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stockley , 168 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). Progressive argues that the U-Haul does not meet the policy's definition of "auto" or "covered auto" and this means there is no coverage for the U-Haul under the policy. Michael and Duckett argue that the policy provides coverage for the U-Haul's involvement in the accident because a Missouri statute requires a broader definition of "motor vehicle" to be read into the policy.6
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the U-Haul does not meet the definition of "auto" under the policy. See Risher v. Farmers Ins. Co. , 200 S.W.3d 84, 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (). It is undisputed that "auto" is defined by the policy as a land motor vehicle "with a gross vehicle weight rating of 12,000 pounds or less, according to the manufacturer's specifications." It is undisputed the U-Haul has a gross vehicle rating of 14,500 pounds. The policy also excludes from the definition of "auto" "step-vans, parcel delivery vans, or cargo cutaway vans or other vans with cabs separate from the cargo area." It is undisputed that the U-Haul was a box van with a cab that was separate from the cargo area. Nor does anyone argue that it meets the definition of a "covered auto," which either refers back to the definition of "auto" or refers to an "additional auto" or "replacement auto," neither of which definition applies to the U-Haul. Accordingly, it is undisputed that the U-Haul is not covered under the unambiguous language of the policy.7 See Progressive Nw. Ins. Co. v. Handshumaker , 662 F. App'x 630, 631 (10th Cir. 2016) (); Risher , 200 S.W.3d at 88 ().
Michael and Duckett argue that a Missouri statute contains a broader definition of "motor vehicle" that must be read into the policy, which would then require coverage for the U-Haul. The Missouri statute at issue is the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"). See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.010. The purpose of the MVFRL is to ensure that insured parties can collect at least minimal damages against negligent parties. Cashon v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 190 S.W.3d 573, 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). Accordingly, the MVFRL sets certain minimum limits for motor-vehicle insurance coverage. See Dutton v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. , 454 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Mo. 2015). If a policy excludes the minimum coverage, that coverage is nevertheless read into the policy. Id.
The MVFRL defines a "motor vehicle liability policy" as "an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance." Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.190.1. The MVFRL sets different minimum standards for coverage depending on whether the policy is based on ownership or operation of a vehicle. Dutton , 454 S.W.3d at 324.
An owner's policy is one that "designate[s] by explicit description or by appropriate reference all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby to be granted," and it must "insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles" in accordance with certain statutory minimums. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.190.2 (emphasis added). "Covered vehicles must be designated expressly either by listing them explicitly or by other reference that identifies which vehicles are covered." Dutton , 454 S.W.3d at 324-25 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial