Thomas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00542-RAH-JTA
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00542-RAH-JTA |
| Citation | 479 F.Supp.3d 1218 |
| Parties | Timothy J. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Robert Page Bruner, Steven Drew Barnett, Wayne Alan Duke, Jr., William Ryan Myers, Belt & Bruner PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.
Forrest Stephen Latta, John Phillip Browning, Christopher Burkhalter, Taylor Barr Johnson, Burr & Forman LLC, Mobile, AL, Stanley Gregory Burge, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.
On September 10, 1897, a 25-year-old London taxi driver named George Smith became the first person ever arrested for drunk driving after slamming his cab into a building. Though it would take another thirteen years before any American jurisdiction—that of the State of New York—would outlaw driving under the influence, Smith was but a preview. As time has repeatedly shown, driving plus alcohol can have equally catastrophic consequences for those who share the road with an impaired driver, not just buildings. Logically, having an impaired insured who causes an accident can have catastrophic consequences also, especially with a local jury.
That was the situation in the underlying case at hand when a Geneva County, Alabama jury was presented with an at-fault traffic accident involving a possibly impaired driver, Timothy J. Thomas (the Plaintiff in this case). Thomas had been drinking (at least one tallboy beer by his initial estimate) before he got behind the wheel, and his actions thereafter caused an accident that resulted in serious injuries to three other individuals and over $300,000 in medical bills. After hearing the evidence, a Geneva County jury issued a combined verdict for $3.8 Million against Thomas. Thomas was insured, but unfortunately for all, the combined insurance policy limits totaled only $500,000. Those limits, plus interest, have since been paid.
This case arises from the decision by Thomas’ insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company ("Auto-Owners" or "Defendant"), not to settle the state court litigation against Thomas, pre-trial, as to all claimants, for the $500,000 policy limits despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. While the parties have filed several motions that remain pending before this Court, this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") focuses on the dispositive motions filed by Thomas (Plaintiff's MSJ) (Doc. 113) and Auto-Owners (Defendant's MSJ) (Doc. 109).
For the reasons more fully set forth below, having studied the record, hearing oral argument, and considering the parties’ every contention, this Court DENIES the Defendant's MSJ in full and GRANTS and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiff's MSJ.
This Court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the "Parties") and this District's status as a proper venue are both uncontested and present here.
To succeed on summary judgment under the relevant provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 the movant must demonstrate "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). This Court must view the evidence and the inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez , 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010) ; Bingham, Ltd. v. United States , 724 F.2d 921, 924 (11th Cir. 1984). Just as importantly, the Court cannot make decisions as to the merits of properly disputed factual issues. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Ryder Int'l Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank , 943 F.2d 1521, 1523 (11th Cir. 1991).
The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed can support such a statement by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A) ; Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Alternatively, the movant can do one of two things. It can contend that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B) ; Fuller v. SL Alabama, LLC , 56 F. Supp. 3d 1232, 1236 (M.D. Ala. 2014). Or, if it will not bear the burden of production at trial, it can assert, without citing the record, that the nonmoving party "cannot produce admissible evidence to support" a material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B) ; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56 advisory committee's note to 2010 amendment ( ).
If the movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish—with evidence beyond the pleadings—that a genuine dispute material to each of its claims for relief exists. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The nonmoving party is required "to go beyond the pleadings" and to present competent evidence designating "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Generally, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" supporting the nonmoving party's case is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
In applying Rule 56, a court must heed two definitions. Applicable substantive law identifies those facts that are material and those that are irrelevant. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. As a matter of course, disputed facts that do not resolve or affect the outcome of a suit will not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Meanwhile, an issue is not genuine if it is unsupported by evidence, or if it is created by evidence that is "merely colorable" or is "not significantly probative." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Essentially, a genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., Inc. , 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
On October 15, 2013, Thomas was driving a 1997 Dodge Dakota truck in Geneva County, Alabama, ran a stop sign, and in doing so, struck another vehicle occupied by Randell Heard ("Randell") and his wife, Donna ("Donna") (collectively, "the Heards"). (Doc. 108-1.) The truck was owned by another individual, Peggy Anderson ("Anderson"). (Id. ) At the time of the accident, Thomas shared the truck with a young passenger, Maryah Annis ("Annis"), the teenage daughter of Amber Foster, an acquaintance. (Id.; see Doc. 108-3, p. 20.) The accident occurred shortly after Thomas left Foster's house with Annis. (Doc. 108-3, pp. 20-22; see also Doc. 108-2, p. 9.)
Thomas imbibed prior the crash, although the amount of Thomas’ alcohol consumption was a disputed issue; in his deposition, Thomas recalled drinking only one tallboy beer while at Foster's house. (Doc. 108-2, pp. 12-13, 16-17, 22-23; see also Doc. 108-4, p. 16.) A post-accident blood alcohol test revealed a level of 68 mg/g (equivalent to between .05 and .06 percent), which indicated that Thomas drank more than one tallboy beer before the accident. (Doc. 108-1; Doc. 108-2, p. 25; Doc. 108-5.) At trial, while he only conceded that he possibly could have had more than one beer, Thomas nonetheless admitted to drinking shortly before the accident. (See Doc. 111-21.) Thomas also conceded that he may have ingested several medications before the accident, including Seroquel, Neurontin, and Buspar. (See Doc. 108-2, pp. 22-23.)
As a result of the crash, the Heards were seriously injured, as was Annis. Donna's injuries included three fractured ribs ; crushing injuries to her left foot; numbness, swelling, and bruising to her right knee and lower abdomen; and laceration to her left foot's fifth toe, causing a misalignment that required surgical correction. (Doc. 121-1, p. 3.) Her medical bills totaled $55,969.81. (Doc. 121-21, p. 5.) Randall's injuries encompassed two broken vertebrae that required spinal fusion surgery, a broken wrist, a shoulder injury, two months of nausea, and a permanent 40% loss of motion in his neck. (Doc. 121-1, p. 3; see also Doc. 108-7, pp. 5-6.) His medical bills totaled $152,304.67. (Doc. 121-1, p. 5.) Annis’ injuries required intubation at the accident scene and a life flight to a medical facility and included a subdural hematoma brain bleed, facial fractures, lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, lacerations to her face and scalp, and an open reduction and fixation of jaw fractures, which eventually required the placement of three steel plates in her face. (Doc. 114-1, pp. 4-5; 121-1, p. 9.) Her medical bills totaled over $112,000. (Doc. 114-1, p. 5.)
All told, the medical bills of the Heards and Annis exceeded $300,000, although the actual paid amounts on these bills were somewhat less due to contractual write-downs. (E.g. , Doc. 1-9, pp. 3-4.)
At the time of the collision, the truck was covered by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People First of Ala. v. Merrill
... ... Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Alora Thomas-Lundborg, Davin Rosborough, American Civil ... already addressed the circumstances of this case, see doc. 58, and will not retread that ground ... See Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 561 U.S. 477, 508, ... ...
-
Bush v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
...a second, unrelated case. (Doc. 18-5 at 2, 4). 3. That is an unlikely proposition. The defendants rely on Thomas v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 479 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (M.D. Ala. 2020), for the proposition that, "[i]n Alabama, tort claims cannot be assigned to a third-party due to the personal ......