Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company et al v. Rex, LLC et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant ESTATE OF JEAN CAROL GEAN, Defendant Ronald Lee Gean. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Ronald Lee Gean and the Estate of Jean Carol Gean's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. ECF No. 25.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 15, 2018, Plaintiff willshow cause in writing why this lawsuit should not be dismiss for lack of an actual controversy. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action. (Show Cause Response due by 2/15/2018.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 2/6/18. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REX, LLC, TABB ROBERT BARKS,
RONALD LEE GEAN, ESTATE OF
JEAN CAROL GEAN, SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC, GAGANJOT SINGH
VIRK, AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, AIR EVAC EMS, INC.,
DEACONESS HOSPITAL, INC.,
HEARTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, and
GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:16-cv-300-AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Ronald Lee Gean and
the Estate of Jean Carol Gean (“the Geans”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ECF No. 25. Plaintiff Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company (“Acuity”), opposes the
motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
Acuity seeks a declaratory judgment regarding whether the insurance proceeds
payable as the result of a vehicle accident are subject to stacking. The accident occurred
on August 5, 2016, on interstate 57 in Williamson County, Illinois. One of the drivers
involved in the accident was operating a tractor trailer under the authority and dispatch of
Rex, LLC, Acuity’s insured and a Missouri citizen. The Geans, Michigan citizens, were
also involved in the accident, and they filed a personal injury lawsuit against Rex, LLC
and Acuity in Illinois state court. ECF No. 47-1.1 In its amended complaint, Acuity
claims that, at an unspecified time, the Geans “asserted a claim that the coverage limit
under the Policy is not limited to $1,000,000.00 as stated in the Declaration Page, but
‘stacks’ to provide a coverage limit commensurate with the number of scheduled units
under the policy so as to provide $21,000,000.00 (twenty-one million) in liability
coverage.” ECF No. 47 at ¶ 39.
In this action, the Geans filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
on March 21, 2017.2 ECF No. 25. On November 13, 2017, Acuity filed a motion
seeking the dismissal of a count for interpleader and the addition of a count for
declaratory judgment under Missouri law. ECF No. 42. The Court granted the motion
and directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of personal
jurisdiction. ECF No. 46.
The Geans argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they
have no ties to the state of Missouri other than an expressed interest in the construction of
1
Tab Robert Barks, Gaganjot Singh Virk, and Swift Transportation Company are
also named as defendants in that lawsuit.
2
The motion also sought to dismiss a count for interpleader for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, which was granted by the Court. The Court held the rest of motion in
abeyance while giving Acuity the opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defect. Instead,
Acuity dismissed the interpleader count.
2
an auto insurance policy held by a Missouri citizen. This pre-litigation interest, the
Geans submit, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Acuity responds that the
Court has personal jurisdiction over the Geans because they purposefully availed
themselves of the laws of the state of Missouri and the benefits of those laws when they
sought monetary payment under the policy.
DISCUSSION
“When personal jurisdiction is challenged by a defendant, the plaintiff bears the
burden to show that jurisdiction exists.” Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d
816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction
exists . . . . ” K–V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591–92 (8th Cir.
2011) (citations omitted). “A plaintiff’s prima facie showing must be tested, not by the
pleadings alone, but by affidavits and exhibits supporting or opposing the motion.”
Fastpath, 760 F.3d at 820 (citations and quotations omitted). The court must view the
evidence “in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve factual conflicts in the
plaintiff’s favor; however, the party seeking to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction
carries the burden of proof and that burden does not shift to the party challenging
jurisdiction.” Id.
“Personal jurisdiction in a diversity case exists only to the extent permitted by the
long-arm statute of the forum state and by the Due Process Clause.” K–V Pharm., 648
F.3d at 592 (citations and quotations omitted). “[B]ecause the Missouri long-arm statute
3
authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction over non-residents to the extent permissible under
the due process clause,” the Court will consider “whether the assertion of personal
jurisdiction would violate due process.” Aly v. Hanzada for Imp. & Exp. Co., LTD, 864
F.3d 844, 849 (8th Cir. 2017) (citations and quotations omitted).
Due process requires that there be “sufficient minimum contacts between a
defendant and the forum state so that jurisdiction over a defendant with such contacts
may not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (citations
omitted). Specifically, courts consider five factors: “(1) the nature and quality of the
contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of those contacts; (3) the relationship of
those contacts with the cause of action; (4) Missouri's interest in providing a forum for its
residents; and (5) the convenience or inconvenience to the parties.” Id. Courts give
“significant weight to the first three factors.” Fastpath, 760 F.3d at 821.
Here, Acuity has failed to meet its burden to establish personal jurisdiction over
the Geans. Acuity does not identify, nor could the Court find, case law supporting
Acuity’s position that by simply making a claim under a Missouri auto insurance policy
obtained by another individual, the Geans have intentionally availed themselves “of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.” J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2783
(2011). Moreover, the aforementioned minimum contact factors weigh against a finding
of personal jurisdiction. The Geans are Michigan citizens, and the accident took place in
Illinois. They contend that they have had no other contacts with Missouri, and Acuity
4
does not allege any contacts between the Geans and Missouri other than their claim
against the insurance policy, which was formed in Missouri between Acuity and a
Missouri insured. Missouri’s interest in providing a forum for its resident in this case and
convenience of the parties does not weigh heavily in favor of this forum.
Upon evaluation the relevant factors, there are insufficient minimum contacts
between the Geans and Missouri to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Geans.3
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Geans for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In light of the dismissal of the Geans, the Court will require Plaintiff to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of an actual controversy, as required
for a declaratory judgment action. “The test to determine whether there is an actual
controversy within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act is whether ‘there is a
substantial controversy between the parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient
immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’ ” Marine
Equip. Mgmt. Co. v. United States, 4 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 1993) (internal citation
omitted). A controversy “must be live throughout the course of the litigation and must
3
In the event the Court found a jurisdictional defect exists, Acuity requests that this
case be transferred to the United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois
under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). However, that statute only applies where venue is improper.
Venue is proper here. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana v. Carlson, No. CV 17-573
(RHK/HB), 2017 WL 3575862, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 14, 2017) (holding that venue is
proper in state where the policy in question was purchased and issued in a declaratory
judgment action concerning insurance coverage). While the Court finds personal
jurisdiction lacking over the Geans, there is no suggestion that venue is improper. Acuity
does not address transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Therefore, the Court declines Acuity’s
request for transfer.
5
exist at the time of the district court's hearing of the matter and not simply when
the case is filed.” Id.
The amended complaint details the underlying lawsuit filed by the Geans in
Illinois, as well as the Geans’ claim that the policy coverage limit stacks to provide
coverage in excess of $1,000,000. The Geans are no longer parties to this action, and the
amended complaint does not state that another party is seeking to stack the policy’s
coverage limits. Therefore, there appears to be no substantial controversy between the
parties left in this lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Ronald Lee Gean and the Estate of
Jean Carol Gean’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.
ECF No. 25.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 15, 2018, Plaintiff will
show cause in writing why this lawsuit should not be dismiss for lack of an actual
controversy. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of February, 2018.
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?