Hicks et al v. Hughes et al
Filing
174
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 117 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company GRANTED. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 8/23/2011.(STB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-385-JBC
CHRISTINE HICKS, ET AL.,
V.
PLAINTIFFS,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
EVAN LINVILLE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
***********
This matter is before the court on intervening plaintiff Shelter Mutual
Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. R. 117. For the reasons
below, the court will grant the motion.
This case stems from a car accident which plaintiffs claim was caused by a
car race on a public road between two vehicles, one driven by Evan Linville
Brandon Jefferson was a passenger in that vehicle. At the time of the accident,
Jefferson was covered under a policy issued by Shelter which covered him if he
became “legally obligated to pay damages as a result of the ownership or use of . .
. a non-owned auto.” R. 117-1 at 5. The plaintiffs filed this action against
Jefferson, alleging that he was involved in a motor vehicle race in violation of KRS
§ 189.505; that he discussed, planned, and/or otherwise agreed to the race which
caused or contributed to the accident; that he was involved in a joint enterprise
that resulted in the accident; and that he acted with reckless disregard for the lives
of the plaintiffs. This court granted Shelter’s motion to intervene to determine
1
whether the policy it issued to Jefferson covered the claims made against him. As
this action is before the court based on diversity jurisdiction, Kentucky law applies.
Hayes v. Equitable Energy Resources Co., 266 F.3d 560, 566 (6th Cir. 2001).
Jefferson’s policy does not cover the claims made by the plaintiffs against
him. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 10 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Ky.1999). The
language of the policy is clear that Jefferson must have physical control or attempt
to take physical control of the vehicle in order to trigger coverage. R. 117-5 at 6-7
(“Use” is defined as “operation or maintenance,” and “operate” is defined as
“physically controlling, having physically controlled, or attempting to physically
control, the movements of the vehicle.”). The plain meaning of physical control is
to directly influence the vehicle with one’s body. The plaintiffs concede that
Jefferson was not driving the car and do not assert that discovery shows or will
show that he attempted to take physical control of the vehicle, i.e. grab the
steering wheel. Even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs,
Jefferson did not have physical control of the vehicle. The plaintiffs’ argument that
Jefferson’s involvement in planning or coordinating a drag race constitutes physical
control of the vehicle is contrary to the plain meaning of the policy. Absent such
physical control, the claims made by the plaintiffs against Jefferson are outside the
policy.
Shelter is not obligated to provide recovery under the Kentucky Motor
Vehicle Reparations Act (“MVRA”), KRS § 304.39-010, et seq., as Jefferson
neither owned nor operated the vehicle. The MVRA is directed at “owners,
2
registrants and operators of motor vehicles” to require them to procure insurance
and to protect the victims of motor vehicle accidents from disputes regarding
coverage between the insured and the insurer. KRS § 304.39.010. See also
National Insurance Assoc. v. Peach, 926 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Ky.App. 1996).
Nothing in the MVRA indicates it was intended to require passengers to carry the
same burden of coverage.
No further discovery would alter the conclusion that Shelter does not owe
coverage, indemnity or a defense to Jefferson in this case. The plaintiffs have
never alleged that Jefferson had physical control over the vehicle. The facts alleged
by the plaintiffs must be sufficient to trigger coverage under the policy; here, they
are not. Stone v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 34 S.W.3d 809, 810
(Ky.App.2000).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Shelter’s motion for summary judgment (R. 117) is
GRANTED.
Signed on August 23, 2011
3
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?