Geico Indemnity Company v. Palmer et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/2/2017. (tfs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 16-cv-0357-SMY-SCW JOHN PALMER, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Geico Indemnity Company’s (“Geico”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26). Responses to the motion were due November 14, 2016. Defendant John Palmer failed to respond to the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, “[f]ailure to timely file a response to a motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion.” Accordingly, Geico’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant John Palmer. The Court further finds and decrees as follows: 1. GEICO issued a policy of insurance to John Palmer, No. 4269-53-64-31 with effective dates of November 30, 2013 through May 30, 2014. 2. The Policy contained an exclusion barring coverage for any vehicle used to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee. 3. When the accident on February 4, 2014 occurred, John Palmer was delivering food for his employer, El Greco restaurant for which Mr. Palmer received an hourly wage and a mileage reimbursement. 4. The delivery exclusion applies here and therefore, Plaintiff GEICO does not owe Defendant John Palmer a duty to defend the underlying actions arising from the alleged accident on February 4, 2014. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: s/ Staci M. Yandle STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

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?