Trigo v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:10–cv–00028.
• Citation: 755 F.Supp.2d 749
• Parties: Linda TRIGO, as mother and next friend of Tomas Trigo, a minor, Plaintiff,v.TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE CO., and Joshua Robert Weasenforth, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

755 F.Supp.2d 749

Linda TRIGO, as mother and next friend of Tomas Trigo, a minor, Plaintiff,

v.TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE CO., and Joshua Robert Weasenforth, Defendants.

Case No. 3:10–cv–00028.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia,Charlottesville Division.

Dec. 17, 2010.

Edward Kyle McNew, John Gregory Webb, Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PC, Yvonne T. Griffin, Tucker Griffin Barnes PC, Charlottesville, VA, for Plaintiff.John Becker Mumford, Jr., Kathryn Elizabeth Kransdorf, Hancock Daniel Johnson & Nagle PC, Glen Allen, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October 22, 2010 (docket no. 34), and Defendant Travelers' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on the same day (docket no. 33). After full consideration of the arguments presented in the submissions, as well as those presented at the hearing on November 12, 2010, the Court will grant Travelers' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, in an accompanying Order, to follow.

I. Background

Plaintiff Linda Trigo, as mother and next friend of Tomas Trigo, a minor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) brought suit in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Virginia against Defendant Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. (hereinafter “Travelers”) and Defendant Joshua Robert Weasenforth (hereinafter “Weasenforth”).

The facts are not in dispute. This suit arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on December 21, 2008. On this date, Tomas Trigo was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Weasenforth, traveling southbound on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) in Albemarle County, Virginia. Weasenforth lost control of the vehicle, causing it to roll over twice. Tomas Trigo was thrown from the vehicle during the accident and suffered a skull fracture and permanent loss of hearing in one ear.

At the time of the accident, the vehicle driven by Weasenforth was insured by an Allstate Insurance Company policy, which had a $50,000 liability limit. This amount of liability coverage is insufficient to compensate Tomas Trigo for his injuries. Travelers provided uninsured and underinsured motorist (hereinafter “UM/UIM”) coverage to the Trigo family through a policy insuring two automobiles for a policy period between December 12, 2008 and June 12, 2009 (hereinafter “the Policy”). ( See Compl., Ex. A.) Travelers charged separate premiums for the coverage for each of the two cars it insured, which were a 1995 Mercedes–Benz E320 and a 1997 Plymouth Breeze. In the “Automobile Policy Continuation Declarations” page, which was attached to the Policy, Travelers provided $100,000 in “Uninsured Motorists Bodily Injury” liability coverage per person, per car.

In the section of the Policy entitled “Part 3—Uninsured Motorists Coverage,” the Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

We will pay, in accordance with Va.Code Ann. Section 38.2–2206, damages which an “insured” or an “insured's” legal representative is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an “uninsured motor vehicle” or an “underinsured motor vehicle” because of:

1. “Bodily injury” sustained by an “insured” and caused by an accident; and

2. “Property damage” caused by an accident.

As Tomas Trigo is a family member of Linda and Tom Trigo, he falls under the definition of “insured” in Part 3 of the Policy. ( See Compl. ¶ 14.)

Following the description of the terms of the insuring agreement in Part 3 of the Policy, the Policy provides a “Limit of Liability” section, which includes a provision purportedly preventing the intra-policy stacking of the UM/UIM coverage for the two cars covered by the Policy. It states, in pertinent part, as follows:

B. Split Limits

The limit of Bodily Injury Liability shown in the Declarations for each person for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, arising out of “bodily injury” sustained by any one person in any one accident. Subject to this limit for each person, the limit of Bodily Injury Liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for “bodily injury” resulting from any one accident.

The limit of Property Damage Liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all “property damage” resulting from any one accident.

This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:

1. “Insureds”;

2. Claims made; or

3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations.

The complaint filed by Plaintiff includes three counts. Count One is entitled “UIM Coverage May Be Stacked Based Upon The Payment Of Multiple Premiums For UIM Coverage.” ( See id. ¶¶ 16–22.) Count Two is entitled “UIM Coverage May Be Stacked Since The UIM Endorsement Itself Does Not Contain The Borror Anti–Stacking Language For Bodily Injury Claims.” ( See id. ¶¶ 23–28.) Count Three is entitled “The Declarations Page Affirmatively Authorizes Stacking.” ( See id. ¶¶ 29–33.) At the conclusion of each count, Plaintiff “demands judgment against the defendants declaring that, under the Travelers policy issued to Linda and Tom Trigo, Travelers provides Tomas Trigo ... with underinsured motorist coverage of $200,000.00 for his claims against Weasenforth.” ( Id. 5, 7, 8.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ( See docket nos. 33 and 34).

II. Applicable Law

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

The court should grant summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “As to materiality ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In order to preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must be “ ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.; see also JKC Holding Co. v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir.2001). However, if the evidence of a genuine issue of material fact “is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the standard is the same. The court must consider “each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.” Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir.2003) (quotations omitted). If the court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact, both motions must be denied. 10A The Late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (3d ed.2010). “But if there is no genuine issue and one or the other party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, the court will render judgment.” Id.

B. Principles of Insurance Policy Construction

Virginia law provides the applicable principles of insurance law. The interpretation of an insurance policy presents a question of law. Va. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 278 Va. 75, 80, 677 S.E.2d 299, 302 (2009). “Courts interpret insurance policies, like other contracts, by determining the parties' intent from the words they have used in the document. Provisions of an insurance policy must be considered and construed together, and any internal conflicts between provisions must be harmonized, if reasonably possible, to effectuate the parties' intent.” Id. (citations omitted). Where the parties dispute an unambiguous policy term, the term is construed according to its plain meaning, but where the parties dispute a term that can be understood to have more than one meaning, the term is construed in favor of coverage and against the insurer. Id. at 81, 677 S.E.2d at 302; Va. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gile, 259 Va. 164, 169–70, 524 S.E.2d 642, 645 (2000); Seals v. Erie Ins. Exch., 277 Va. 558, 562, 674 S.E.2d 860, 862 (2009). “[W]hen an insurer seeks to limit coverage under a policy, the insurer must use language that is reasonable, clear, and unambiguous.” Williams, 278 Va. at 81, 677 S.E.2d at 302; accord Lower Chesapeake Assocs. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 260 Va. 77, 88, 532 S.E.2d 325, 331 (2000). Accordingly, the intra-policy stacking of UM/UIM coverage is permitted “unless clear and unambiguous language exists on the face of the policy to prevent such multiple coverage.” Williams, 278 Va. at 81, 677 S.E.2d at 302; Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Borror, 221 Va. 967, 970, 275 S.E.2d 625, 627 (1981).

III. Discussion

The parties to this action agree that there are no facts in dispute and each claims entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Two prominent Supreme Court of Virginia opinions on the intra-policy stacking of UM/UIM coverage are relevant to this dispute. In Borror, the court reviewed a policy offering UM/UIM coverage in the amount of “Bodily injury $25,000 each person; $50,000 each accident Property Damage $5,000 each accident.” Williams, 278 Va. at 82, 677 S.E.2d at 303. Several paragraphs later, in the same UM/UIM section, the policy in Borror provided the following limits of liability:

Regardless of the number of ... motor vehicles to which this insurance applies, (a) the limit of liability for bodily injury stated in the schedule as applicable to “each person” is the limit of the company's liability for all damages because of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one accident and, subject to the above provision respecting “each person”,...