Markel International Insurance Company v. Patel et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 29 Report and Recommendations, granting 18 Motion to Dismiss filed by John Powell and denying as moot 24 Motion to Stay filed by John Powell. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/26/2010. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA A IK E N DIVISION M a rk e l International Insurance Co., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Chandrakant R. Patel d/b/a Allendale ) M o t o r Court and John Powell, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 1:09-3016-MBS

ORDER

T h is matter is before the Court on Defendant John Powell's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. P la in tiff Markel International Insurance Co. ("Markel") is an insurance company incorporated in a s ta te other than South Carolina with a principal place of business in London, England. Compl. ¶ 1, E C F No. 1. Defendant Chandrakant R. Patel ("Patel"), who is proceeding pro se, is the sole p r o p r ie t o r of a motor inn located in Allendale, South Carolina. Id. at ¶ 2. Defendant John Powell (" P o w e ll" ) is the plaintiff in a personal injury action that was filed in state court against Patel. Id. a t ¶ 12. Markel's duty to defend Patel in the state lawsuit is the subject of this action. I. BACKGROUND O n May 8, 2008, Markel issued Patel a commercial general liability policy (the "Policy"). Id . at ¶ 8. Approximately eight months later, on January 23, 2009, Powell fell from the roof of P a t e l's motor inn. Id. at ¶ 12; Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss 1, ECF No. 18-1. Powell filed suit against P a te l in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Allendale County seeking actual and punitive d a m a ge s for injuries he claims to have sustained in the fall. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1. Powell served P a te l with a Summons and Complaint on July 20, 2009, and Patel has actively defended against the

s u it by filing an Answer and serving on Powell Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests to Admit. Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss 1­2, ECF No. 18-1. Markel filed the instant action on November 18, 2009 invoking diversity jurisdiction, 28 U .S .C . § 1332(a), and seeking relief under the authority of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § § 2201­2202. Specifically, Markel seeks a declaratory judgment that: (1) "the exclusions contained in the Policy do not require Markel to provide indemnification to the defendants;" (2) "the exclusion c o n ta in e d in the Policy does not require Markel to indemnify Defendants for any punitive or e x e m p la ry damages;" (3) "since there is no duty to indemnify the Defendants under any provision o f the policy then Markel has no duty to defend Patel in the underlying lawsuit;" (4) Markel shall be a w a rd e d "the costs and disbursements of this action;" and (5) the court award "such other relief as th is District Court deems just and proper under the circumstances." Compl. 6, ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling. On December 7, 2009, P o w e ll filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. On December 15, 2009 Powell also filed a motion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24. Markel filed a r e s p o n s e in opposition to Powell's motion to dismiss on December 9, 2009. ECF No. 20. Powell d i d not file a reply to Markel's response in opposition to the motion to dismiss.1 O n August 5, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in w h i c h he noted that district courts have discretion to grant relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

1

Because Patel is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant t o Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), informing Patel of his r e s p o n s i b i li ty to respond to a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. Patel did not file a n y papers related to the motion to dismiss.

2

S e e Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Quarles, 92 F.2d 321, 325 (4th Cir. 1937). Where the action e x c lu s iv e ly involves issues of state law, courts may decline to exercise their jurisdiction under the A c t due to considerations of federalism, judicial efficiency, and comity. See, e.g., Nautilus Ins. Co. v . Winchester Homes, Inc., 15 F.3d 371, 377 (4th Cir. 1994); Mitcheson v. Harris, 955 F.2d 235, 2 3 7 ­ 2 4 0 (4th Cir. 1992). After carefully examining each of the relevant factors, the Magistrate Judge re c o m m e n d e d that this court decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act a n d grant Powell's motion to dismiss. Markel did not file an objection to the R&R. The time for filing an objection has expired and th is matter is now ripe for consideration by the court. II. L E G A L STANDARD T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e rm in a t io n of any portions of the R&R to which a specific objection is made. The court may a c c e p t, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or m a y recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the a b s e n c e of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead m u s t "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the re c o m m e n d a tio n ." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

III.

CONCLUSION
The court has carefully reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n and incorporates it herein by reference. Defendant John Powell's motion to

3

d i s m is s is granted, ECF No. 18, and the motion to stay is denied as moot, ECF No. 24. This case s h a l l be dismissed. I T IS SO ORDERED. /s / Margaret B. Seymour M a r ga r e t B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina A u gu s t 26, 2010.

4