State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clark

• Docket Number: Case No. 1:21-cv-00385-CRK
• Decision Date: 07 September 2022
• Citation: 626 F.Supp.3d 1163
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., an Illinois Company, Plaintiff, v. McKenna CLARK, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Koby Clark, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

626 F.Supp.3d 1163

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., an Illinois Company, Plaintiff, v. McKenna CLARK, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Koby Clark, Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00385-CRK

United States District Court, D. Idaho

Signed September 7, 2022

Jeffrey Norris Street, Litster Frost Injury Lawyers, Boise, ID, Stephen Lee Adams, Trudy Hanson Fouser, Gjording Fouser PLLC, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff.

April M. Linscott, Owens, McCrea & Linscott PLLC, Coeur d'Alene, ID, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Claire R. Kelly, Judge^*

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'s ("State Farm") and McKenna Clark's¹ ("Defendant") motions for summary judgment, Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13 ("Pl. Mot."); Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 14 ("Def. Mot."), and accompanying memoranda, Memo. in Supp. [Pl. Mot.], Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-2 ("Pl. Br."); Memo. in Supp. [Def. Mot.], Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 14-2 ("Def. Br."). State Farm seeks a declaratory judgment against Defendant stating that State Farm is not obligated to provide uninsured ("UM") or underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage, further payments, or further indemnify Defendant for any loss arising out of the death of Defendant's husband Koby Clark under four insurance policies issued by State Farm.² See Compl. for Declaratory J. ¶¶ 18, 20, Prayer for Relief ¶ 1, Aug. 19, 2021, ECF No. 1-2 ("Compl."). State Farm argues the Court may determine as a matter of law that Koby Clark is not an "insured" as defined in the Disputed Policies because he was not a named insured on the Disputed Policies and did not "reside primarily" with James Clark, the first named insured on the Disputed Policies. See Pl. Br. at 4-5, 12-14; Certified Policy Record [067 Policy] at SF000122, 128-29, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5 (declaration page listing James Clark as the first named insured, definitions of "insured" and "resident relative"); Certified Policy Record [075 Policy] at SF000166, SF000172-73, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5 (same); Certified Policy Record [050 Policy] at SF000212, 218-19, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5 (same). Defendant counters that the meaning of the phrase resides primarily is ambiguous and should be construed in Defendant's favor. Def. Br. at 3-5; see Resp. to [Pl. Mot.] at 4-11, Mar. 14, 2022, ECF No. 18 ("Def. Resp."). For the following reasons, the Court grants State Farm's motion for summary judgment and denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

State Farm commenced this action by filing a complaint in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Canyon ("Idaho State Court") on August 19, 2021. Notice of Removal at 1, Sept. 22, 2021, ECF No. 1 ("Removal Notice"); see also Compl. at 1 (electronic filing stamp indicating the complaint was filed in Idaho State Court on August 19, 2021, at 1:13 p.m.). On September 22, 2021, Defendant timely removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Removal Notice; see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a)-(b), 1446 (2018).³ On January 31, 2022, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, Pl. Mot.; Def. Mot., and the motions were fully briefed on April 11, 2022.⁴ Pl.'s Resp. to [Def. Mot.], Mar. 14, 2022, ECF No. 17 ("Pl. Resp."); Def. Resp.; Statement Material Facts in Dispute, Mar. 14, 2022, ECF No. 18-1 ("Disputed Facts"); Reply to [Pl. Resp.], Mar. 28, 2022, ECF No. 19 ("Def. Reply"); Reply in Supp. [Pl. Mot.], Mar. 28, 2022, ECF No. 20 ("Pl. Reply"); Resp. to Def.'s Objections; Reply to Resp. to Def.'s Objections. On July 21, 2022, the Court heard oral argument. See Order, July 15, 2022, ECF No. 29; Minute Entry, July 21, 2022, ECF No. 30 ("Oral Arg.").

The following facts are not in dispute.⁵ Koby Clark was the adult son of James and Krista Clark and was married to Defendant. PSOF ¶ 1; DSOF ¶¶ 1-2. Defendant and Koby Clark lived with Koby Clark's parents in Kuna, Idaho until the summer of 2017. See PSOF ¶ 2; DSOF ¶ 3. In the summer of 2017, Defendant and Koby Clark moved to an apartment in Bozeman, Montana (the "Bozeman Apartment") so Defendant could attend Montana State University. PSOF ¶ 2; DSOF ¶ 3. Defendant and Koby Clark intended to remain in Montana until Defendant finished school. PSOF ¶ 10; see DSOF ¶ 5. After relocating to Bozeman, Koby Clark and Defendant made several trips to Idaho. PSOF ¶¶ 12-13; DSOF ¶ 13. In April 2018, Koby Clark began working for Storm Creek Outfitters. DSOF ¶ 14. In mid-April, he spent a couple days at the Bozeman Apartment. PSOF ¶ 9; DSOF ¶ 17. On or around May 21, 2018, Koby Clark was the passenger in a vehicle owned by Storm Creek Outfitters which was involved in a single vehicle accident resulting in his death. PSOF ¶ 14; DSOF ¶¶ 20-21. The vehicle and driver of the vehicle were uninsured. PSOF ¶ 17; DSOF ¶ 22. At the time of Koby Clark's passing, State Farm had issued one insurance policy to James and Koby Clark, the 073 Policy, and the Disputed Policies to James and Krista Clark. PSOF ¶¶ 15-16; DSOF ¶ 22. All four policies had UM and UIM motorist coverage limits of $100,000 and $300,000 respectively. PSOF ¶¶ 15-16.

The UM provisions of the Disputed Policies "only require State Farm to make payment for bodily injuries suffered by an insured." Id. ¶ 21. For the purpose of UM coverage, the Disputed Policies define "insured" as follows:

Insured means:

1. you;

2. resident relatives;

3. any other person while occupying:

a. your car;

b. a newly acquired car; or

c. a temporary substitute car.

Such vehicle must be used within the scope of your consent. Such other person occupying a vehicle used to carry persons for a charge is not an insured; and

4. any person entitled to recover compensatory damages as a result of bodily injury to an insured as defined in items 1., 2., or 3. above.

. . .

Resident Relative means a person, other than you, who resides primarily with the first person listed as named insured on the Declarations Page and who is:

1. related to that named insured or his or her spouse by blood, marriage, or adoption, including an unmarried and unemancipated child of either who is away at school and otherwise maintains his or her primary residence with that named insured; or

2. a ward or a foster child of that named insured, his or her spouse, or a person described in 1. above.

PSOF ¶ 22 (emphases removed); DSOF ¶ 25 (emphases removed); see also Certified Policy Record [067 Policy] at SF000128-29, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5; Certified Policy Record [075 Policy] at SF000172-73, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5; Certified Policy Record [050 Policy] at SF000218-19, Jan. 31, 2022, ECF No. 13-5.

On March 16, 2021, Defendant provided a statement under oath regarding Koby Clark's residency at the time of the accident. Remote Examination Under Oath of McKenna Clark, Mar. 16, 2021, ECF No. 13-6.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has jurisdiction over "all civil actions where the matter in exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When deciding questions of substantive law in diversity cases, federal courts are bound by state court decisions and state statutes. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); see also Guar. Tr. Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109-12, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945). "In a diversity case, where the state's highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how the state high court would resolve it." Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 186 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 803 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th Cir. 1986), modified, 810 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court may look to "well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions" when predicting how the state's highest court would decide an issue. Takahashi v. Loomis Armored Car Serv., 625 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir. 1980). When deciding questions of procedural law, federal courts apply the appropriate federal rule. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471-74, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965).

The Court will grant a 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); see also Munden v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 8 F.4th 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2021). The movant bears the initial burden of establishing there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006). If established, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish there is a genuine issue for trial by setting forth specific facts, by affidavit or otherwise. Id.; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law." Miller, 454 F.3d at 987. The Court considers "the appropriate evidentiary material identified and submitted in support of both motions, and in opposition to both motions, before ruling on each" when presented with cross-motions for summary judgment. Tulalip Tribes of Wash. v. Washington, 783 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cnty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must consider the cited materials but may consider other materials in the record in addition to the cited materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant's Objections to Supporting Evidence

Defendant objects to the inclusion of, and reference to, Exhibit Four of the Declaration of Michael Gianquitto ("Exhibit Four") as inadmissible settlement negotiations under ...