Southern Insurance Company of Virginia v. Coyne et al

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER: The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment 39 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 8/2/2022. (jra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY
OF VIRGINIA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:21-CV-3445-TWT

PETER COYNE, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a declaratory judgment action. It is before the Court on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment [Doc. 39]. No
response to the motion has been filed. The facts of the case are set forth in the
Plaintiff's motion. Defendant Whitehead was driving his personal 1994 Ford
Ranger at the time of the accident. The Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendant Whitehead was acting within the course and scope of his
employment for Defendants Coyne and/or Oakview Landscape Construction.
But the Policy issued to Coyne clearly does not apply to Defendant Whitehead’s
1994 Ford Ranger because it only affords coverage for “Specifically Described
‘Autos’” in Item Three of the Declarations page for which a premium is shown
or which otherwise qualify as covered autos. There is only one vehicle described
in Item Three, a 2000 Ford F550 Super Duty. Thus, at the time of the accident,
neither Whitehead nor any other Defendant was occupying or operating an
automobile described as a “Specifically Described ‘Autos’” in Item III of the

Policy. As a result, no Defendant is entitled to coverage under the Policy. See

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Slaughter, 958 F.3d 1050, 1054 (11th Cir. 2020)
(holding that coverage under a policy for “Specifically Described ‘Autos’” must
list the automobile in the declarations for that coverage to trigger).
Because the 1994 Ford Ranger was not designated as a “Specifically
Described ‘Autos’” under Item III of the Policy, Southern is not required to
defend or indemnify Defendants Coyne and/or Oakview in the Underlying
Lawsuit. Even more, because no vehicle involved in the accident forming the
basis of the Underlying Lawsuit is listed or described in the Policy, there is no
coverage under the Policy for any Defendant. Defendants Coyne and Oakview
filed a stipulation on January 28, 2022, stipulating and agreeing that the
Policy issued by Southern does not provide insurance coverage for the claims
asserted and damages sought in the Underlying Lawsuit. [Doc. 27]. Defendant
Trey Adams is in default. Once a default has been entered, a party may seek a
default judgment against the non-responsive party under Rule 55(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Default Judgment [Doc. 39] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed
to enter final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED, this

2nd

day of August, 2022.

_____________________________
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
2