Buie v. Anderson et al
Filing
35
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for Summary Judgment Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 03/26/2019 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MALCOLM BUIE
PLAINTIFF
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:18cv321-LG-RHW
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
and JOHN DOES A-F
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE THE COURT is the [28] Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Plaintiff Malcolm Buie. In the Motion, Buie argues that Defendant Allstate
Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) – the issuer of his uninsured
motorist policy – is contractually bound to pay him $85,000 for the uncollected
default judgment he obtained in state court against Courtney Anderson – the
uninsured motorist previously severed from this lawsuit. The Motion is fully
briefed. Having considered the submissions of the parties and applicable law, the
Court is of the opinion Buie’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted in
part and denied in part. The Motion will be granted insofar as Allstate concedes the
issue of coverage. However, summary judgment will not be entered on damages.
I. BACKGROUND
Buie filed this lawsuit in the County Court of Warren County, Mississippi
against Defendant Anderson, an uninsured driver, and Allstate, Buie’s insurer.
Buie brought negligence claims against Mr. Anderson, alleging that Anderson
injured Buie while operating a vehicle in a Wal Mart parking lot, and contract
claims against Allstate, alleging wrongful denial of uninsured motorist benefits.
(Notice of Removal Ex. A., at 3-5, ECF No. 1-1.) On May 18, 2018, Allstate removed
the case to federal district court. Applying Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 20,
the Court determined that the claims against Anderson and the claims against
Allstate were distinct litigable events. (Order Granting Mot. Sever Claims &
Partially Remand & Den. Mot. Remand 3, ECF No. 13.) The Court severed the
claims against Anderson from this lawsuit and remanded those claims back to state
court. (Id. at 4.)
On February 14, 2019, the state court entered final judgment in the amount
of $85,000 against Mr. Anderson. The judgment was not the result of a jury finding
of liability and damages. Instead, judgment was entered following Mr. Anderson’s
default. Buie filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on February 28,
2019, arguing that Allstate is contractually bound by the terms of his uninsured
motorist policy to pay this default judgment of $85,000. Allstate counters that it
never provided written consent to the lawsuit against Mr. Anderson, which the
policy requires for Allstate to be bound by that judgment.
–2–
II. DISCUSSION
a. Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its
opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as
to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 586 (1986). “[T]he nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air
Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
“A genuine dispute of material fact means that ‘evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Royal v. CCC & R
Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). If the evidence presented by the nonmovant
“‘is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative,’ summary judgment is
appropriate.” Cutting Underwater Techs. USA, Inc. v. ENI U.S. Operating Co., 671
F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). In deciding
whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court views the evidence and
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. RSR Corp. v. Int’l
Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851, 857 (5th Cir. 2010).
–3–
Allstate Concedes the Threshold Issue of Coverage
Allstate agrees that Mr. Anderson qualifies as an uninsured motorist under
Buie’s policy and that Buie was covered by the policy at the time of the incident in
the Wal-Mart parking lot. 1 Summary Judgment will therefore be granted as to
these issues. However, Allstate maintains that it is entitled to its own investigation
of and determination of Buie and Anderson’s comparative fault and Buie’s damages.
b. Allstate is Not Bound by the State Court Default Judgment Against
Anderson
A paragraph in Buie’s policy states, that “If, at any time before we pay for
the loss, an insured person institutes a suit against anyone believed responsible
for the accident, we must be given a copy of the summons and complaint or other
process. If a suit is brought without our written consent, we aren’t bound by any
resulting judgment.” (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, at 35, ECF No. 28-2 (ECF pagination)
(emphasis in original).) Buie contends that this language has been satisfied
because (1) he provided Allstate with a copy of the summons and complaint when he
served process on Allstate and (2) Allstate provided its written consent to Buie’s
lawsuit against Anderson when Allstate removed this case and asked that the
claims against Anderson be severed. Allstate seems to acknowledge that it received
a copy of the summons and complaint but denies having every provided written
consent to Buie for the the lawsuit against Anderson.
The Court would note that this position, while not explicitly at odds with Allstate’s
briefing on the [8] Motion to Sever Claims and Partially Remand, appears not to be
entirely consistent with Allstate’s prior representation of the factual disputes in this
case.
1
–4–
Buie’s argument has some facial appeal. Allstate certainly was given proper
notice of the lawsuit and, through written court filings, effectively elected to play no
part in the defense of Buie’s claims against Anderson (which would necessarily be
determinative of Buie’s claim under his uninsured motorist policy). Buie
characterizes this decision as Allstate having “consented to the state court case
proceeding against Mr. Anderson without its participation.” 2 (Reply Mot. Summ. J.
3, ECF No. 32.) However, the absence of written rejection does not equate to the
presence of a written consent. Plaintiff did not seek and obtain written consent to
proceed. And the policy clearly requires written consent. Thus, the state court
default judgment does not establish the damages in this case. See Spann v. Allstate
Property & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 4:08CV95-DPJ-JCS, 2009 WL 3633879, at *3 (S.D.
Miss. Oct. 28, 2009); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wightwick, 320 So. 2d 373, 37576 (Miss. 1975).
Because Allstate is not bound by the default judgment against Mr. Anderson,
Buie still bears the burden of establishing Mr. Anderson’s negligence and his own
resulting damages. Summary judgment is therefore not appropriate on this record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [28] Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Malcolm Buie is GRANTED IN PART
Buie also points out the contradictory nature of Allstate now asserting that the
only issues to be determined are Anderson’s negligence and Buie’s damages given
Allstate’s prior representation that his tort claims against Anderson should be
severed from his contract claims against Allstate. See Delaughter v. Dufrene,
1:17CV294-LG-RHW, 2017 WL 5501498 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017); Cook v.
OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co., 2:13CV305-HSO-RHW, 2014 WL 6388458 (S.D. Miss. Nov.
14, 2014).
2
–5–
and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a
declaration that Buie’s uninsured motorist policy covers any damages caused by
Courtney Anderson’s negligence. The Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks to bind
Allstate to the state court default judgment.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 26th day of March, 2019.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
–6–
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?