Stephens et al v. Holcomb Logging, LLC et al
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 147 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, Order on Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision, Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 8/10/15. (rel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
LISA BEAM STEPHENS and
PAMELA BEAM DRAKE,
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of
Truman Edward Beam
v.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:13-cv-00244-GHD-DAS
PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY
GARNISHEE
v.
HOLCOMB LOGGING, LLC; DARRYL HOLCOMB;
JAMES HOLCOMB; and IC TRUCKING
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING
GARNISHEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before this Court are a motion for summary judgment [72] filed by Garnishee
Progressive Gulf Insurance Company and a motion for summary judgment [101] filed by
Plaintiffs Lisa Beam Stephens and Pamela Beam Drake. Upon due consideration, the Court
finds that Garnishee's motion for summary judgment [72] is well taken and shall be granted, and
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [101] is not well taken and shall be denied.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs Lisa Beam Stephens and Pamela Beam Drake (collectively, "Plaintiffs"),
wrongful death beneficiaries of the Decedent, Truman Edward Beam ("Decedent"), filed suit in
the Circuit Court of Itawamba County, Mississippi, against Defendants Darryl Holcomb; James
Holcomb; Holcomb Logging, LLC; and IC Trucking (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that
while working as a truck driver for Defendants, Decedent was standing outside a vehicle when
I
he was struck and killed by a loaded log truck operated by Defendant James Holcomb, and that
Decedent's cause of death "was the wrongful or negligen[t] act or omission of Defendants or by
such unsafe machinery owned and operated by Defendants or the failure of Defendants to keep
their vehicle under control, failure to maintain a proper lookout for the path of their vehicle, and
failure to yield to a pedestrian." PIs.' Am. Compl., State-Ct. R. [26-25]
~~
6-7. After Plaintiffs
filed an uncontested motion for summary judgment, the state court granted the motion, finding
that "[Decedent] died as a result of injuries sustained, which were proximately caused by the
impact of a log truck and trailer owned and operated by the Defendants and their
agents/employees, and that the death of [Decedent] was proximately caused by the negligence
and wrongful actions of the aforesaid Defendants." State-Ct.'s Order Granting PIs.' Am. Mot.
Summ. J., State-Ct. R. [26-20] at 1. After a hearing was held to determine damages, the state
court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants in the amount of $920,034.00
plus court costs in the amount of $120.00 and post-judgment interest at the legal rate of 8% per
annum. No appeal was taken from the judgment.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs made a proper suggestion for writ of garnishment against
Defendants and/or Progressive Gulf Insurance Company ("Garnishee" or "Progressive").
Garnishee had not been a party to, nor did it participate in, the state-court proceeding. The writ
of garnishment was issued by the Circuit Clerk of Itawamba County, Mississippi, and was served
on Garnishee. Garnishee filed its notice of removal within thirty days of receipt of the writ of
garnishment, removing the garnishment proceeding to this Court and filing its own separate
declaratory judgment action.
Garnishee maintains that no insurance coverage exists under
Garnishee's policy for the subject incident. Plaintiffs filed a counterclaim asserting fraud as
basis of recovery and an amended counter-complaint.
2
Subsequently, Garnishee filed a motion for summary jUdgment [72], attacking the
jurisdictional basis of the underlying state-court judgment and the merits of the garnishment
action. Plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment [101] in response, presenting
several arguments in support of liability coverage for the subject incident. On April 17, 2015,
this Court entered an Order [124] and memorandum opinion [125] granting Garnishee's motion
for summary judgment insofar as declaring the state-court judgment void as to Defendants
Darryl Holcomb, James Holcomb, and IC Trucking; dismissing Defendants Darryl Holcomb,
James Holcomb, and IC Trucking as parties to the action; and denying Garnishee's motion for
summary judgment insofar as declaring the state-court judgment valid and entitled to full faith
and credit as to Defendant Holcomb Logging, LLC. The reasoning in that memorandum opinion
[125] is hereby incorporated into this opinion.
In that Order [124] and memorandum opinion [125], the Court also held in abeyance the
sole issue remaining on summary judgment: whether the Progressive insurance policy, issued to
Darryl Holcomb and IC Trucking, provides coverage as to the liability of Holcomb Logging,
LLC for the subject incident. The Court gave the parties an opportunity to brief the same.
Plaintiffs and Garnishee filed supplemental briefing; Defendant Holcomb Logging, LLC did not
file supplemental briefing. Subsequently, the Court held an oral argument relative to the issue on
July 27, 2015. Taking into account all of the foregoing, the Court is now ready to rule on the
sole remaining issue on summary judgment.
B. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
3
U.S. 317, 322,106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). See FED. R. CIY. P. 56(a); Johnston &
Johnston v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., 732 F.3d 555, 561 (5th Cir. 2013). The rule "mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party
who fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477
U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the
Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See id. at 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548.
Under Rule 56(a), the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to "go beyond the pleadings and by ..
. affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate
'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for triaL'" Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548;
Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275, 282 (5th Cir. 2001); Willis v. Roche
Biomedical Labs., Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995).
It is axiomatic that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment "[t]he evidence of the
nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Tolan v.
Cotton, - - U.S. - - , - , 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863, 188 L. Ed. 2d 895 (2014) (per curiam)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202
(1986)); see, e.g., Ard v. Rushing, 597 F. App'x 213, 217 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting
United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros., Inc., 453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006) (on summary
judgment, " '[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party' ")).
The Court" 'resolve[s] factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only where
there is an actual controversy, that
IS,
when both parties have submitted evidence of
4
contradictory facts.''' Thomas v. Baldwin, 595 F. App'x 378, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(quoting Antoine v. First Student, Inc., 713 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and
citation omitted)). "[T]he nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory
allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.'" Id (quoting Hathaway
v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007)).
"[A] 'judge's function' at summary judgment is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine
the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.' " Cotton, 134
S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505); see Stewart v. Guzman, 555
F. App'x 425, 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing Vaughn v. Wood/orest Bank, 665 F.3d
632, 635 (5th Cir. 2011) (In ruling on a summary judgment motion, "[w]e neither engage in
credibility determinations nor weigh the evidence.")).
C. Analysis and Discussion
As stated, the sole issue before the Court at this juncture is whether the Progressive
insurance policy, issued to Darryl Holcomb and IC Trucking, provides coverage as to the
liability of Holcomb Logging, LLC for the subject incident. If the Progressive policy in question
provided coverage for Holcomb Logging, LLC for the incident in question, Garnishee would be
liable to cover the extent of liability of Holcomb Logging, LLC up to the policy limits.
However, as Garnishee correctly urges in its motion and briefs, that is not the situation in this
case.
" 'The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law, not one of fact.' " Minn.
Lifo Ins. Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 164 So. 3d 954, 967-(j8 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Noxubee Cnty.
Sch. Dist. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 883 So. 2d 1159, 1165 (Miss. 2004) (quotation marks
omitted)). An insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured, with the rights
5
and duties set out by the provisions of the insurance policy; as such, an insurance policy is a
contract subject to the general rules of contract interpretation. ACS Constr. Co. ofMiss. v. CGU,
332 F.3d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 725 So. 2d
779,781 (Miss. 1998)); Haney v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 3:08cv482-DPJ-JCS, 2010 WL 235025,
at *2 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 15, 2010) (citing Sennett v.
us.
Fid. & Guar. Co., 757 So. 2d 206, 212
(Miss. 2000)); Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass 'n v. Blakeney, 54 So. 3d 203, 205 (Miss. 2011). "Under
Mississippi law, the construction of an insurance contract is limited to examining the policy."
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Natchez Steam Laundry, 131 F.3d 551,555 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Emp'rs
Mut. Cas. Co. v. Nosser, 164 So. 2d 426,430 (Miss. 1964)). "A policy must be considered as a
whole, with all relevant clauses together."
Us.
Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Martin, 998 So. 2d 956, 963
(Miss. 2008). "
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?