Acuity v. Decker et al
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 8/28/2017 denying 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. cc: Counsel (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-00068-JHM
ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PLAINTIFF
V.
JAMES DECKER AND
RYAN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DN 27].
Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
While employed with Ryan Trucking, the Defendant, James Decker was involved in a
“vehicle accident on December 10, 2013 with another driver, Harry K. Coultas of Lewisport,
Kentucky.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) Decker settled his claims against Coultas for the policy limits of
Coultas’ insurance policy, however, Decker claims his damages exceed that amount. Thus,
Decker demanded payment under the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage provisions
of his insurance policy with Acuity. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
On June 8, 2017, Acuity filed this Complaint for Declaratory Relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2201, requesting that the Court find “Decker’s claim pursuant to the Policy’s [Underinsured
Motorist] Coverage Form, is time barred because of Decker’s failure to bring legal action against
Acuity within two years of December 10, 2013.” (Id. at ¶ 15.)
The accident at issue occurred on December 10, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 8.) With respect to the
time period in which an insured may bring a claim against Acuity, the policy states:
Any legal action against us under this Coverage Form must be brought
within two years after the date of the accident. However, this paragraph c(2) does
not apply to an insured if, within two years after the date of the accident, we and
the insured agree to arbitration in accordance with this endorsement.
(Id. at ¶ 12.) Decker did not file legal action within two years of the date of the accident,
however, he argues that the limitation period in unreasonable and unenforceable
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Before the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must find that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the
basis for its motion and identifying that portion of the record that demonstrates the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the
moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts
demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247–48 (1986).
Although the Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some
“metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the nonmoving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by “citing to
particular parts of materials in the record” or by “showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “The mere existence
of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient;
there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
2
III. DISCUSSION
This Court has been presented this question before. Examining a limitations period
provision similar to that found in the Acuity policy, this Court found the two year limitations
period to be unreasonable and invalid because the Court believed “the Kentucky Supreme Court .
. . would find it unreasonable to require an insured to sue her insurer for underinsured motorist
benefits prior to being required to sue the tortfeasor.” Brown v. State Auto, 189 F. Supp. 2d 665,
671 (W.D. Ky. 2001).
Fifteen years later, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Riggs, 484 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Ky. 2016).
In Riggs, the limitations period provision is
significantly different than that found here or in Brown. The provision in Riggs required the
insured to file an underinsured motorist suit “no later than two (2) years after the injury, or death,
or the last basic or added reparation payment made by any reparation obligor, whichever later
occurs.” 484 S.W.3d at 727. The policy provision in Riggs precisely mirrors the statute of
limitations language in the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (KMVRA).
304.39-230(6).
KRS §
The Kentucky Supreme court found that a limitations “provision [which]
provides an insured with ‘the same rights as he would have had against an insured third party’—
[is] a result that is not at all unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Elkins, 844 S.W.2d at 425). Thus, this
Court’s prediction that the Kentucky Supreme Court would not require an insured to sue her
insurer for UIM benefits before being required to sue the tortfeasor was proven correct.
Despite some language in Riggs to support the argument, the Court does not agree with
Acuity that the Kentucky Supreme Court has conclusively determined that a two year limitations
period is reasonable because the policy provision in that case was not a simple two year
limitations period. The policy provision in Riggs provided the insured with the same rights as
3
against an insured party, a principle at the heart of the decison. The policy provision here does
not provide the insured with those same rights. As in Brown, and based on Riggs, with an assist
from Judge Reeves of the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Court concludes that “the Supreme
Court of Kentucky would conclude that a two-year limitations provision such as the one at issue
in this case is unreasonable and unenforceable.” Pratt, 2017 WL 2345648, at *4.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED.
cc: counsel of record
August 28, 2017
4
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?