Williams v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
Decision Date | 30 July 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. C14–0866 RSM. |
Citation | 117 F.Supp.3d 1206 |
Parties | Jill A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a foreign Insurer, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
William Franklin Tri, Jelsing Tri West & Andrus, Everett, WA, Bradley Jerome Moore, Stritmatter Kessler Whelan, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.
Charles C. Huber, D. Michael Reilly, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkts. # 20 and # 22. The parties seek judgments as a matter of law with respect to coverage under an Accidental Death & Dismemberment ("AD & D") policy issued by Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America's ("LINA") to Plaintiff's now-deceased husband, Michael Williams. Having reviewed the record before it, and having considered the oral arguments presented by the parties on July 28, 2015, the Court now DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons discussed herein.
The sequence of events leading up to this case is undisputed. Plaintiff's now-deceased husband, Michael Williams, was an employee of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Mr. Williams enrolled for two types of insurance through his employer, both issued by Defendant through group policies—basic life insurance under Policy No. FLI 051202, and AD & D insurance under Policy No. OK821591 ("The Policy"). See Dkt. # 23, Ex. A. Plaintiff, Jill Williams, is the primary beneficiary of both policies. Ms. Williams has received benefits under the life insurance policy, and that policy is not at issue here. The current dispute focuses on benefits under the AD & D Policy.
Mr. Williams was a member of the UMF motorcycle club.1 Dkts. # 20 at 3 and # 23, Ex. C at 1. On June 8, 2013, Mr. Williams and approximately 20–25 other riders gathered in Gig Harbor, WA, to ride in memoriam for a fellow UMF rider who had passed away. Id. The riders met at a bar in Gig Harbor at approximately 10:00 a.m. and stayed there for about an hour. Dkt. # 23, Ex. C at 1. They then drove to a bar in Belfair. Id. According to Washington State Patrol Officer Adam Richardson, Mr. Williams was observed drinking several beers at the Belfair bar before being told by another UMF member to slow down because they still had more riding to do. Id. They departed Belfair at approximately 12:30 p.m.
Dkt. # 23, Ex. C at 1–2; see also Dkt. # 21, Ex. A. A subsequent toxicology report revealed that, at the time of the accident, Mr. Williams had a blood alcohol level of 0.17g/100mL—more than two times the legal limit. Dkt. # 23, Ex. B.
Ms. Brown received injuries to her head, neck and back, and was airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA. Dkts. # 21, Ex. Ex. A and # 24 at ¶¶ 3 and 4. According to Ms. Brown, she has been diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. Id. at ¶ 4. As a result, she suffers from amnesia and does not recall the events leading up to the accident or the events which occurred immediately after. Id. at ¶ 2 and Dkt. # 23, Ex. C at 2.
Forensic pathologist Emmanuel Q. Lacsina, M.D., who performed the autopsy of Mr. Williams, concluded:
This 47 year-old white male, Michael Williams, died of multiple blunt force injuries to the head, neck, torso and lower left extremity, sustained as an operator of a motorcycle which collided with an auto. The manner of death is classified as an ACCIDENT (Traffic).
After the incident, Ms. Williams made claims under Mr. Williams' life insurance and AD & D policies. On July 8, 2013, Defendant approved Ms. Williams' claim under the life insurance policy. Dkt. # 21, Ex. E. The Claims Specialist handling the claims noted that the claim under the AD & D policy was still under review. Id. On August 23, 2013, Defendant denied Ms. Williams' claim under the AD & D policy. Dkt. # 21, Ex. C. Defendant provided two bases for its denial—first, that the incident was not an "accident" because of the deliberate acts by Mr. Williams preceding the collision, and therefore the incident was not a covered loss under the AD & D policy; and, second, that the incident occurred during the commission of a felony, and benefits are therefore excluded under the felony exclusion in the policy. Id. Ms. Williams appealed the denial, which was rejected on March 25, 2014. Dkt. # 21, Ex. F. The instant lawsuit followed.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "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) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In ruling on summary judgment, a court does not weigh evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but "only determine[s] whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Crane v. Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir.1994)(citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny & Myers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1992) ). Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The parties appear to agree that there are no disputed material facts and that this matter is appropriate for disposition on the instant motions.
Plaintiff now seeks an Order from this Court finding as a matter of law that the felony exclusion is void as a matter of public policy under Washington law, and that Mr. Williams' death was an accident within the meaning of the insurance policy. Dkt. # 20. Defendant seeks judgment as a matter of law that the felony exclusion is not void, and that Mr. Williams' death was not an accident and therefore not covered by the AD & D policy. Dkt. # 22.
Under Washington law, "[i]nsurance policies are to be construed as contracts, and interpretation is a matter of law." State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 102 Wash.2d 477, 480, 687 P.2d 1139 (1984). "The entire contract must be construed together in order to give force and effect to each clause," and be enforced "as written if the language is clear and unambiguous." Washington Pub. Util. Districts' Utils. Sys. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Clallam County ("Washington Pub."), 112 Wash.2d 1, 10, 771 P.2d 701 (1989) ; see also Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Washington Pub. Utils. Dists.' Util. Sys., 111 Wash.2d 452, 456, 760 P.2d 337 (1988) ( ). If, on the other hand, "a policy provision on its face is fairly susceptible to two different but reasonable interpretations, the policy is ambiguous and the court must attempt to discern and enforce the contract as the parties intended." Transcon. Ins. Co., 111 Wash.2d at 456–57, 760 P.2d 337 ; see also Kish v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 125 Wash.2d 164, 171, 883 P.2d 308 (1994).
An insurance contract "will be given a practical and reasonable interpretation that fulfills the object and purpose of the contract rather than a strained or forced construction that leads to an absurd conclusion, or that renders the contract nonsensical or ineffective." Washington Pub., 112 Wash.2d at 11, 771 P.2d 701 ; see also Tr...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 3:14–cv–367–SI.
... ... , a traditional, full service investor relations firm specializing in the healthcare and life sciences industry. Bernarda recommended that Galena not hire DreamTeam. Bernarda noted that ... with the purchase or sale of any security." (emphasis in original)); Superintendent of Ins. v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 11 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. 165, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971) (" We ... ...