Watkins v. Continental Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1626,92-1626 |
| Citation | 1993 WL 127950,991 F.2d 793 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ronald C. WATKINS; Karen S. Watkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg (CA-91-53-C), Robert Earl Maxwell, Chief District Judge.
Mark E. Gaydos, Wilson, Frame & Metheney, argued (Clark B. Frame, Wilson, Frame & Metheney, Morgantown, W.V. on brief), for plaintiffs-appellants,
J. Greg Goodykoontz, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, argued (Robert G. Steele, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, W.V, on brief), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Ronald C. Watkins, a West Virginia sheriff's deputy, was injured when a stolen car he was investigating exploded. Watkins and his wife, Karen S. Watkins, brought this action in West Virginia state court against the Continental Casualty Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to the proceeds of an uninsured motorist liability policy issued by Continental Casualty and held by Watkins's employer. The parties being diverse, Continental Casualty removed the case to the district court and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Continental Casualty's motion, holding that Watkins was not a "named insured" under the policy and therefore could not avail himself of its coverage. The Watkinses now appeal the district court's decision, claiming that the court misconstrued the language of the policy. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
By stipulation of the parties, the facts before the district court were not in dispute. On April 26, 1989 Watkins, a Marion County deputy sheriff, was dispatched to the town of Worthington to investigate an abandoned vehicle that reportedly had been stolen from the County's impoundment yard. Upon arriving on the outskirts of Worthington, Watkins spotted the vehicle in a parking lot. Watkins drove into the lot and parked his police cruiser approximately twelve feet behind the abandoned vehicle. He approached the driver's side of the vehicle and opened the front door. The vehicle immediately exploded, severely injuring Watkins.
The police cruiser driven by Watkins to the scene of the explosion was insured under a business automobile insurance policy issued to the State of West Virginia by Continental Casualty. The policy contained an uninsured motorist endorsement and a "named insured" endorsement. The named insured endorsement provided that the policy would offer coverage, as named insureds, for those West Virginia political subdivisions which had certificates of liability insurance on file with Continental Casualty. It is undisputed that Marion County had such a certificate.
In the district court, Continental Casualty based its motion for summary judgment upon two independent arguments: (1) at the time of the explosion, Watkins was not occupying the insured police cruiser; and (2) the explosion did not occur as a result of the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of the uninsured vehicle. Following oral argument on the motion, the district court held that Watkins was not a "named insured" under the policy, and therefore was not eligible for coverage under the uninsured motorist endorsement. The district court did not find it necessary to determine whether the explosion arose out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of an uninsured motor vehicle.
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we employ the same summary judgment standards applicable in the district court, but are not bound by the theories upon which the lower court relied. On appeal of a summary judgment, "the prevailing party may ... assert in a reviewing court any ground in support of his judgment, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the trial court." Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 475 n. 6 (1970). Our review is essentially a plenary review on the summary judgment record before the district court. We therefore need not reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment even if the grounds upon which the grant was made appear incorrect as a matter of law, so long as there is some other legal theory in which summary judgment could be rooted.
For Watkins to be covered by the uninsured motorist endorsement of the Continental Casualty policy, two requirements must be met: (1) Watkins either must be an "insured" under the policy, or he must have been "occupying" the insured police cruiser at the time of the accident; and (2) the explosion must have resulted from the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of an uninsured vehicle. * Because this is a diversity action, we must apply West Virginia substantive law in deciding whether Watkins is covered by the uninsured motorist endorsement. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Jones, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-00479
...nexus links the use of the vehicle to an accident does not mean that such use was 'normal[.]'" Watkins v. Continental Cas. Co., 991 F.2d 793, 1993 WL 127950, at *2 (4th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). In Baber, the Supreme Court of Appeals rejected coverage under the "arises out of" language for ......
-
Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brady
...insistence that the "use" of the car be "foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle."Watkins v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 991 F.2d 793 (Table), 1993 WL 127950, *2 (4th Cir. 1993). Although the defendants emphasize the fact that the truck was allegedly in motion when Hunt shot Taylor......