Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Great Divide Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:17cv60 |
| Citation | 381 F.Supp.3d 673 |
| Parties | WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Douglas Aaron Winegardner, Faith Abar Alejandro, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Butz, Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata LLP, Darnestown, MD, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on five motions:
The Waste Management Plaintiffs and the Insurance Company Defendants filed Cross Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.2 The Waste Management Plaintiffs and the Insurance Company Defendants have responded to the Cross Motions. (ECF Nos. 73, 74.) The Waste Management Plaintiffs did not respond to the Insurance Company Defendants' Motion to Seal and the time to do so has expired. The Insurance Company Defendants responded to the Motion to Strike Extrinsic Evidence and the Motion to Strike Reply, (ECF Nos. 84, 86), and the Waste Management Plaintiffs replied, (ECF Nos. 87, 88).
The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.3 For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the Insurance Company Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Waste Management Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Waste Management Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint seeking a declaration that the Insurance Company Defendants must provide them with a defense in an ongoing litigation filed in the Circuit Court of King George County (the "Underlying Litigation") and asserting breach of contract claims based on the Insurance Company Defendants' refusal to provide such a defense. Because the outcome of the Motions pending before the Court turn on the allegations in the Underlying Litigation, the Court will first introduce that litigation. After discussing the procedural history in this Court, the Court will evaluate the contract provisions upon which the Waste Management Plaintiffs base their claims of a duty to defend.
On October 18, 2011, Arthur Robinson suffered injuries from an accident at the King George Landfill (the "Landfill") in Virginia. At the time, Robinson worked for (the now defunct) TAC Transport, LLC ("TAC Transport") as a commercial garbage truck driver.
On the day of the accident, Robinson drove a TAC Transport trailer to the Landfill to dispose of garbage. The Landfill provided equipment to commercial drivers, including a "tipper device" in order to raise, tip, and lower trailers to unload garbage.
The plaintiff in the underlying case alleges that, while Robinson waited in line to dump the contents of his trailer, the tipper malfunctioned when operating with the trailer ahead of Robinson, driven by Earl Kennedy. Robinson claims that nearby Landfill employees should have assisted Kennedy, but they did not. Instead, Kennedy—also a TAC Transport employee—asked for Robinson's help to manually close the rear door of Kennedy's trailer. Robinson obliged.
To assist in trying to free the lodged rear door, Robinson climbed onto the Landfill's tipping platform. Once on the platform, Robinson assisted Kennedy and two other unidentified people in "us[ing] a wooden 2x4 to apply pressure to the door in an attempt to lift it." (Mem. Supp. Pls. Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 11, ECF No. 72.) Robinson testified during the Underlying Litigation that "Kennedy gave Robinson ‘the okay that it was okay to go ahead and’ " assist in trying to free the door. (Id. ).) Robinson also testified that "[t]hen just when the door came free, I slipped and went off—went off the back." (Id. (quoting Robinson Depo. 165).) Robinson fell backward off the Landfill's tipper, landing on the ground fifteen to twenty feet below, and sustaining serious injuries. Although Robinson described his fall off the Landfill's tipper as due to a slip, he testified that he had "no idea" what he slipped on. (Robinson Dep. 167–68.) He noted that he "didn't see any problems with the tipper" on the day of his fall. (Id. 168.)
On October 4, 2013, Robinson filed the complaint in the King George County Circuit Court, alleging one count of negligence each against Waste Management, Inc., Waste Management of Virginia, Inc., King George Landfill, Inc., and King George Landfill Properties, LLC,6 as entities that "owned, operated, managed and/or w[ere] responsible for the Landfill." (Am. Compl. ¶ 17; Underlying Litig. Compl. ¶¶ 4–7, 23–46.) In the Underlying Litigation, Robinson contends that the Waste Management Plaintiffs' negligent actions caused him to fall from the Landfill's tipper, which resulted in his injuries. Robinson seeks $ 10,000,000 in damages jointly and severally from those four entities. Robinson did not include any claim against TAC Transport in the Underlying Litigation.
In this case, the WM Plaintiffs seek representation from the Insurance Company Defendants for the Waste Management Plaintiffs' defense in the Underlying Litigation. They assert three contractual bases for the duty to defend, the first of which is a service agreement, while the other two are insurance contracts. First, the Waste Management Plaintiffs cite a transportation service agreement between TAC Transport and Waste Management of Maryland, Inc. (the "Transportation Agreement"). The Waste Management Plaintiffs claim the Transportation Agreement would obligate TAC Transport, as Robinson's employer, to defend them in the Underlying Litigation because TAC Transport's negligence caused Robinson's injuries.7 Second, the WM Plaintiffs contend that the duty to defend arises under a Commercial General Liability Policy (the "CGL" Policy) between TAC Transport and Great Divide. Finally, the Waste Management Plaintiffs contend a duty to defend arises under a Business Auto Policy (the "BA Policy") between TAC Transport and Great Divide.8 In Section III below, the Court will discuss seriatim the Waste Management Plaintiffs' arguments for seeking defense costs under the Transportation Agreement, the CGL Policy, and the BA Policy.
The Waste Management Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this Court asserting six claims against the Insurance Company Defendants and Arthur Robinson.9 (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) While these six claims pertain to three insurance contracts,10 only two of the insurance contracts are relevant to the Court's analysis of the current cross-motions.11 On February 14, 2017, the Waste Management Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint asserting the same six claims against the Insurance Company Defendants and Robinson. (See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 6.) On March 13, 2017, after an extension of time, the Insurance Company Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim. (ECF No. 15.) With the Court's permission, on April 13, 2017, the Insurance Company Defendants filed their Corrected Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaim. (ECF No. 24.)
On April 18, 2017, the Court referred several motions12 to the Honorable David J. Novak, United States Magistrate Judge, for Report and Recommendation, including the Waste Management Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, (ECF No. 20). (ECF No. 27.) On April 21, 2017, the Court also referred the Insurance Company Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Underlying Claimant Parties for Lack of Standing, (ECF No. 28), and Motion to Drop the Waste Management Subsidiaries as Parties Hereto or Declare Them to be Nominal or Otherwise Unnecessary Parties, (ECF No. 29), to the Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 34.) Additionally, on May 1, 2017, the Court referred the Insurance Company Defendants' Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 37), to the Magistrate Judge for consideration and incorporation into his Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 41.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...exclusion conspicuously, plainly and clearly set forth any limitation on coverage to the insured." Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Great Divide Ins. Co. , 381 F. Supp. 3d 673, at 683 (E.D. Va. 2019) (citation omitted). Although the Policy does not define "Virus," the Court will base its analysis on a ......
- United States v. Barber