Walsh v. Pac. Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-cv-00510-HNJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
| Parties | PATRICK WALSH and ALEXANDRA WALSH, Plaintiffs v. PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants |
PATRICK WALSH and ALEXANDRA WALSH, Plaintiffs
v.
PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants
No. 4:20-cv-00510-HNJ
United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
March 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. JOHNSON JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this diversity case, Plaintiffs, Patrick and Alexandra Walsh, assert claims against Defendant, Pacific Indemnity Company (“Pacific Indemnity”), for breach of contract and bad faith arising from Pacific Indemnity's denial of the Walshes' insurance claim for an alleged, stolen violin.[1] Pacific Indemnity filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims. (Doc. 55).[2] As elaborated below, triable fact issues prevent
the entry of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, but the evidence warrants the entry of summary judgment on the bad faith claim, as the undisputed material facts portray that the statute of limitations bars that claim. Accordingly, the court will PARTIALLY GRANT Pacific Indemnity's motion for summary judgment.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall grant 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 party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
If the movant sustains its burden, a non-moving party demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact by producing evidence by which a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The non-movant sustains this burden by demonstrating “that the record in fact contains supporting evidence, sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion.” Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993).
In the alternative, the non-movant may “come forward with additional evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency.” Id. at 1116-17; see also Doe v. Drummond Co., 782 F.3d 576, 603-04 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1168 (2016).
The “court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (citations omitted). “‘Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). “Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151 (citation omitted). “That is, the court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that ‘evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.'” Id. (citation omitted).
Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “In such a
situation, there can be ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 322-23. In addition, a movant may prevail on summary judgment by submitting evidence “negating [an] opponent's claim, ” that is, by producing materials disproving an essential element of a non-movant's claim or defense. Id. at 323 (emphasis in original).
There exists no issue for trial unless the nonmoving party submits evidence sufficient to merit a jury verdict in its favor; if the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The movant merits summary judgment if the governing law on the claims or defenses commands one reasonable conclusion, id. at 250, but the court should deny summary judgment if reasonable jurors “could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. That is, a court should preserve a case for trial if there exists “sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id. at 249.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Pacific Indemnity issued Policy Number 13758088-01 to Plaintiffs Patrick and Alexandra Walsh on July 1, 2013, effective until July 1, 2014. (Doc. 57-1, at 3, 23). The policy provided $865, 000 in coverage for a home located in Gadsden, Alabama, and $605, 500 coverage for the home's contents. (Id. at 24). Specifically, the policy provided “Deluxe Contents Coverage, ” or “coverage against all risk of physical loss to
[the Walshes'] contents anywhere in the world unless stated otherwise or an exclusion applies.” (Id. at 42). The policy defined “contents” as “personal property you or a family member owns or possesses.” (Id.). The policy limited the amount of coverage available for certain items of personal property, but it did not include a limitation for musical instruments. (Id. at 43-44).
The policy also included “coverage against physical loss if your valuable articles are lost, damaged, or destroyed.” (Id. at 25). The policy further stated: “This part of your Masterpiece Policy provides you with coverage against all risk of physical loss to your valuable articles anywhere in the world unless stated otherwise or an exclusion applies.” (Doc. 57-1, at 50). The policy defined the term “valuable article” as “personal property you own or possess for which an amount of coverage is shown in the Valuable Articles section of your Coverage Summary.” (Id.). The policy listed only furs as itemized “valuable articles, ” with blanket coverage in the amount of $30, 000. (Id. at 25).
The policy also contemplated that more than one provision may cover the loss of a single piece of property:
If a loss is covered under more than one part of this policy, we will pay you under the part giving you the most coverage, but not under more than one part. However, when both Valuable Articles Coverage and contents coverage are shown in the Coverage Summary, and a loss is covered under both parts, your amount of coverage will equal the combined total of both contents and Valuable Articles Coverage subject
to the Contents Special Limits and policy provisions. In no event will we make duplicate payments.
(Doc. 58-1, at 30).
The policy defined the insured's duty to the insurance company upon suffering a property loss, including a loss to contents or valuable articles:
Your duties after a loss
If you have a loss this policy may cover, you must perform these duties:
Notification. You must immediately notify us or your agent of your loss. In case of theft or accident, you must also notify the police or similar competent authority.
. . . .
Prepare an inventory. You must prepare an inventory of damaged personal property, describing the property in full. It should show in detail the amount insured under this policy and actual amount of the loss. Attach bills, receipts, and other documents to support your inventory.
. . . .
Proof of loss. You must submit to us your signed, sworn proof of loss providing all information and documentation we request such as the cause of loss, inventories, receipts, repair estimates and similar records.
Examination under oath. We have the right to examine separately under oath as often as we may reasonably require you, family members and any other members of your household and have them subscribe the same. We may also ask you to give us a signed description of the circumstances surrounding a loss and your interest in it, and to produce all records and documents we request and permit us to make copies.
(Id. at 33-34) (boldface emphasis in original).
The policy also states the following under the heading “Special Conditions”:
Legal action against us
You agree not to bring legal action against us unless you have first complied with all conditions of this policy. For property, you also agree to bring any action against us within the time . . . limitation prescribed by Alabama law, but not until 30 days after proof of loss has been submitted to us and the amount of loss has been determined. However, the time period to bring legal action against us is extended by the number of days between the date that proof of loss is submitted and the date the claim is denied in whole or in part.
(Id. at 34).
In 1957, Mrs. Walsh inherited from her father a violin crafted by French luthier Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume. (Doc. 59-1, at 10-11, 65). Her father commissioned an appraisal of the violin during the 1950s, but she later lost the appraisal certificate, as well as the bill of sale recording her father's purchase of the violin, during a hurricane. (Id. at 14-16, 47). Mrs. Walsh never commissioned another appraisal of the violin. (Id. at 48).
On November 21, 2013, Mrs. Walsh prepared for a car trip at her home in Gadsden, Alabama, to visit her daughter in New Jersey. She laid...
To continue reading
Request your trial