DiPaolo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al
Filing
33
ORDER Granting 21 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 9/28/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
KIMBERLY DiPAOLO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY; BILL
)
HUMPHREY, CPCU, CLU; DOES 1 through )
10 and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
Case No.: 2:10-cv-001108-RLH-RJJ
ORDER
(Motion for Summary Judgment–#21;
Counter Motion for Summary
Judgment–#25)
18
Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
19
20
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#21, filed Mar. 2, 2011). The Court has also
21
considered Plaintiff Kimberly DiPaolo’s Opposition (#24, filed Apr. 11, 2011), and State Farm’s
22
Reply (#28, filed May 10, 2011).
23
Also before the Court is DiPaolo’s Counter Motion for Summary Judgment
24
(#25, filed Apr. 11, 2011). The Court has also considered State Farm’s Opposition (#29, filed
25
May 18, 2011) and DiPaolo’s Reply (#32, filed June 20, 2011).
26
/
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
1
1
BACKGROUND
2
This dispute arises out of an insurance policy State Farm issued to DiPaolo and an
3
accident DiPaolo was involved in. The parties submitted a stipulated set of facts for purposes of
4
their cross motions for summary judgment, and thus, the facts are not in dispute for the purposes
5
of this order.
6
State Farm issued an automobile insurance policy to Hugo and Kimberly A.
7
DiPaolo on December 11, 2005 (the “Policy”). This Policy was in effect at the time of the
8
accident and covered DiPaolo’s vehicle, a 2006 Escalade (the “Escalade”). The Policy provided
9
uninsured and underinsured motor vehicle coverage pursuant to endorsements and various terms
10
and conditions (“UM/UIM Coverage”). On May 4, 2007, DiPaolo was driving her Escalade near
11
the intersection of Warm Springs and Las Vegas Boulevard. At the same time, a small airplane (a
12
Piper Archer PA-28-121) experienced in-flight problems. As a result, the pilot made an
13
emergency landing on Las Vegas Boulevard and hit DiPaolo and her Escalade (as well as other
14
cars) causing damage to both her and the vehicle.
15
DiPaolo and others filed suit against the airplane’s owners. Due to the other
16
claims, DiPaolo settled with the owners for approximately half of the liability insurance policy
17
limit available, $472,678.10. DiPaolo claims, however, that her damages exceed this amount.
18
Therefore, she presented a UIM claim to her insurer, State Farm. State Farm evaluated the facts
19
and circumstances and the relevant policy language. State Farm concluded that the accident was
20
not covered because it did not involve an “underinsured motor vehicle” as defined by the policy.
21
State Farm informed DiPaolo of its decision in a letter dated August 15, 2008. DiPaolo
22
subsequently filed this suit.
23
Now before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons
24
discussed below, the Court grants State Farm’s motion and denies DiPaolo’s motion.
25
/
26
/
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
2
1
2
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard
3
The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no
4
dispute as to the facts before the court. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d
5
1468, 1471 (9th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery
6
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine issue as to any
7
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.
8
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate in this case because no facts
9
are in dispute as the parties have stipulated to the facts, (Dkt. #19, Stipulated Set of Facts and
10
Documents), and the interpretation of an insurance policy under undisputed facts is merely a
11
question of law for the court. Cort v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Companies, Inc., 311 F.3d
12
979, 982 (9th Cir. 2002).
13
II.
Analysis
14
The Court must answer two questions in resolving these cross motions for summary
15
judgment. First: Under Nevada’s statutory uninsured and underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”)
16
insurance scheme, must an insurer provide coverage for this type of accident? Second: If not, does
17
State Farm’s policy cover accidents with underinsured airplanes while they are on a freeway? The
18
Court answers both of these questions in the negative.
19
20
A.
State Statutory Policy
Under Nevada law, an insurer is prohibited from issuing an automobile insurance
21
policy that does not comply with Nevada’s mandatory UM/UIM statutes. NRS 690B.020. The
22
Nevada Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether an airplane or other aircraft
23
qualifies as an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle for the purposes of these statutes. Thus,
24
the Court must decide how the Nevada Supreme Court would hold using “decisions from other
25
jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidance.” Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v.
26
Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
3
1
The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that “UM/UIM coverages provide important
2
protection designed to mitigate losses sustained by policy insureds in connection with collisions
3
with uninsured or inadequately insured drivers.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitts, 99 P.3d
4
1160, 1162 (Nev. 2004) (emphasis added). Further the Nevada Supreme Court has opined that,
5
“UIM insurance serves an important public purpose to provide maximum and expeditious
6
protections to the innocent victims of financially irresponsible motorists ....” Id. (internal
7
quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). However, “[g]iven the public policy
8
considerations concerning UM/UIM protection, [courts] review attempts to restrict such coverage
9
with a high degree of scrutiny.”
10
The Court finds that the Nevada Supreme Court would determine that Nevada’s
11
UM/UIM statutes do not require insurers to cover freak accidents with underinsured aircraft. The
12
Nevada Supreme Court’s own statements show that the UM/UIM statutes are concerned with
13
drivers who choose to go with no or insufficient insurance, not pilots. Further, every other court
14
that has addressed the question of whether aircraft are uninsured or underinsured vehicles for
15
purpose of state UM/UIM insurance coverage has said that they are not.1 The Washington State
16
Court of Appeals provides a particularly similar case with persuasive analysis. In Sperry v. Maki,
17
740 P.2d 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987), a car was hit by an airplane trying to land on a highway and
18
the car’s passengers sought recovery under their UM/UIM policy. The Sperry court noted that
19
while the terms ‘vehicle’ or ‘motor vehicle’ may etymologically cover airplanes, the terms are
20
“ordinarily understood to mean a machine designed to move solely on the land.” Sperry, 740 P.2d
21
at 344. Thus, for this and other reasons, the Sperry court held that the plain meaning of the statute
22
did not address airplanes or other aircraft. Id. Because of the statements of the Nevada Supreme
23
Court, the persuasive analysis of other state and federal courts, and its own reasoning, the Court
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
1
See, e.g., Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n v. LaPointe, 843 F.2d 964, 967 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that an
airplane which crashed into insured's car was not a “motor vehicle,” within meaning of indemnification provisions
of Michigan's no-fault automobile insurance statute.; RLI Ins. Co. v. Heling, 520 N.W. 2d 849, 853 (N.D. 1994).
4
1
finds that the Nevada UM/UIM statutes do not require UIM coverage for accidents with
2
underinsured aircraft even while the aircraft is moving on land.
3
B.
4
The Policy
Since the Court has determined that Nevada law does not require State Farm to
5
provide coverage for this type of accident, the Court must determine whether State Farm itself did
6
provide coverage for this accident in its policy. Under Nevada law, insurance policies must be
7
construed and enforced as written unless there is an ambiguity. Ellison v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n,
8
797 P.2d 975, 977 (Nev. 1990). Furthermore, “the language of an insurance policy will be given
9
its plain and ordinary meaning ‘from the viewpoint of one not trained in law.’” United Nat’l Ins.
10
Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., Inc., 99 P.3d 1153, 1156-57 (Nev. 2004) (quoting Vitale v. Jefferson Ins.
11
Co., 5 P.3d 1054, 1057 (Nev. 2000)). Thus, the Court shall not “‘rewrite contract provisions that
12
are otherwise unambiguous ... [or] increase an obligation to the insured where such was
13
intentionally and unambiguously limited by the parties.’” Id. (quoting Vitale, 5 P.3d at 1057).
14
Here, the language of the policy is not ambiguous. The policy defines a motor
15
vehicle as a “land motor vehicle.” (Dkt. #19, Policy at 12.) The term “land motor vehicle” is only
16
ambiguous once attorneys get involved, not before. And since the Court must give the term its
17
plain and ordinary meaning as viewed by one not trained in the law, the meaning is obvious. Even
18
assuming that there is an ambiguity based on various dictionary definitions, see Delli Bovi v.
19
Pacific Indemn. Co., 708 N.E.2d 693, 694 (Ohio 1999), that does not mean that the term motor
20
vehicle is ambiguous as far as common usage is concerned. Normal people (i.e., non-attorneys) do
21
not hear the term “land motor vehicle” and picture taxiing aircraft, but cars, trucks, and likely even
22
bulldozers and snowmobiles. Quite simply, an airplane is an aircraft and the Court need not
23
explain further. As such, by defining the term ‘motor vehicle’ further as a ‘land motor vehicle,’
24
State Farm’s policy does not cover accidents with underinsured airplanes. For all of the above
25
reasons, the Court grants State Farm’s motion and denies DiPaolo’s motion.
26
/
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
5
1
CONCLUSION
2
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#21)
4
is GRANTED.
5
6
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DiPaolo’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#25)
is DENIED.
Dated: September 28, 2011.
8
9
____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
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?