Nationwide Insurance Company of America et al v. H.H. Pizza, Inc. et al
Filing
28
FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Order granting 25 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. (See Order for details.) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/28/2015. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA and ALLIED PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:15-cv-1013-T-30AEP
H.H. PIZZA, INC. d/b/a HUNGRY HOWIES
PIZZA, a Florida Corporation, SOUTH END,
INC. d/b/a HUNGRY HOWIES PIZZA, a
Florida Corporation, DELTONA FOODS, LLC d/b/a
HUNGRY HOWIES PIZZA, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, THOMAS E. HELLER,
KRISTI LEE HELLER, and BETTY KAY
CZAJKOWSKI, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of RUSSEL SHANE CZAJKOWSKI,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final
Default Judgment (Dkt. 25) against Defendants H.H. PIZZA, INC., SOUTH END,
INC., and DELTONA FOODS (“Defendants”) under Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, having reviewed the motion and the applicable
law, concludes that the motion should be granted.
1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking a declaration that two policies of insurance
do not provide coverage for claims asserted by Betty Kay Czajkowski, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Russel Shane Czajkowski, in a wrongful death lawsuit
against Defendants (“The Czajkowski Action”). The Czajkowski Action alleges that
Thomas Heller, in the course of his employment with Defendants, negligently struck
and killed Russel Shane Czajkowski with his pizza delivery vehicle.
Defendant H.H. PIZZA was served with the complaint on June 4, 2015 (Dkt. 7),
and Defendants SOUTH END, INC and DELTONA FOODS, LLC were served on June
8, 2015 (Dkt. 6, 8). Defendants failed to appear or otherwise defend, and a Clerk’s
Default was entered against those parties on July 2, 2015. (Dkt. 16, 17, 18). Plaintiffs
now move for a declaratory default judgment.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a court may enter a default
judgment against a party who has failed to plead in response to a complaint. Such a
judgment is appropriate “against a defendant who never appears or answers a
complaint, for in such circumstances, the case never has been placed at issue.” Solaroll
Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., 803 F.2d 1130, 1134 (11th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, all well-pleaded allegations of fact against that defendant will be deemed
2
admitted. See Nishimatsu Const. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th
Cir. 1975).
Mere conclusions of law, however, will not. Cotton v. Massachusetts Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff must provide “a sufficient
basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation,
789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). A “sufficient basis”
means satisfying the court that it has jurisdiction over the claims and that the complaint
adequately states a claim for which relief may be granted. See Nishimatsu Const. Co.,
516 F.2d at 1206; see also Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1245 (concluding that, conceptually, a
motion for default judgment should be treated like a reverse motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim).
When evaluating the complaint, a court must determine “whether [it] contains
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotations omitted)). And this plausibility standard is met
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Surtain, 789 F.3d at
1245 (internal citations omitted). Or, in the case of an action for declaratory judgment,
that a declaratory judgment is appropriate. See Id.
3
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. The Court also
finds that by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 it has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claim
for declaratory relief.
Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts to
support their claim for declaratory relief. Defendants’ insurance agreements, which
Plaintiffs provided with their complaint, contain an “exclusions” provision that states:
This insurance, including any duty we have to defend ‘suits’,
does not apply to:
g. Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft
Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership,
maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, ‘auto’
or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any
insured. Use includes operation and ‘loading or unloading.’
This exclusion applies even if the claims allege negligence or
other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment,
training or monitoring of others by an insured, if the ‘occurrence’
which cause the ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ involved
the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any
aircraft, ‘auto’ or watercraft that is owned or operated by or
rented or loaned to any insured.
(Dkt. 1, p. 8). The agreement defines “Auto” as “[a] land motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or
equipment.” (Id.) The complaint alleges that the vehicle that Heller struck Czajkowski
is an “Auto” as defined by the agreement and that the Czajkowski Action seeks damages
for bodily injury.
4
These facts, as pled, “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference” that the
claims alleged the Czajkowski Action are not covered by Plaintiffs’ insurance policies.
See Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1245 (internal citations omitted).
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs’ Insurance Policy No. ACP BPFZ 3006687076 does not afford coverage
to Defendants for any of the claims, allegations, and/or damages set forth in the
underlying lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Volusia County, Florida, Case No. 2015 10224 CIDL, styled Betty Kay
Czajkowski, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Russell Shane Czajkowski
vs. H.H. Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Hungry Howies Pizza, a Florida corporation, South End,
Inc., d/b/a Hungry Howies Pizza, a Florida corporation, Deltona Foods, LLC d/b/a
Hungry Howies Pizza, a Florida corporation, Thomas E. Heller and Kristi Lee
Heller, the Czajkowski Action.
3. Plaintiffs’ Insurance Policy No. ACP CAP 3006687076 does not afford coverage
to Defendants for any of the claims, allegations, and/or damages set forth in the
Czajkowki Action.
4. Plaintiffs have no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants with respect to the
CZAJKOWSKI Action.
5
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
in favor of Plaintiffs.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions
as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of October, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2015\15-cv-1013 Default Judgment.docx
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?