Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Jeter et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 42 Motion for Default Judgment as to defendant Trentcina Jeter. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/10/2013.(asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Trentcina Jeter and Carla M. Coulter,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:12-1759-MBS

ORDER AND OPINION

On June 26, 2012, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) filed a
complaint against Trentcina Jeter (“Jeter”) and Carla M. Coulter (“Coulter”), seeking a declaration
that the tort claims in an underlying lawsuit in state court do not give rise to a duty to indemnify
under an automobile insurance policy. ECF No. 1. On September 12, 2012, Coulter filed an answer
and a counterclaim seeking a declaration to the contrary. ECF No. 8. Jeter failed to file an answer,
and on September 19, 2012, Nationwide requested entry of default, which the clerk’s office entered.
ECF Nos. 11 & 14. Coulter and Nationwide filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos.
26 & 27. On June 18, 2013, the court issued an order that granted Nationwide’s motion for
summary judgment and denied Coulter’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 41. The within
matter is before the court on Nationwide’s unopposed motion for default judgment as to Jeter, ECF
No. 42, which motion was filed on June 24, 2013.
When a party against whom judgment is sought fails to file a responsive pleading or
otherwise defend the action, the plaintiff may request, and the court may enter, default judgment
against the nonresponsive party. FED R. CIV . P. 55. When a party defaults, all of the allegations
against that party in the pleadings are deemed admitted. See Certaineed Corp. v. Pinnacle Bldg.
Solutions, Inc., C/A No. 3:07–72, 2007 WL 4287641 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2007). Although the court

"must accept the facts alleged in a complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff," Coleman v. Md. Ct. of App., 626 F.3d 187, 188 (4th Cir. 2010), threadbare "legal
conclusion[s] . . . [are] not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680
(2009).
The court need not resolve Nationwide’s motion for default judgment based on the pleadings
alone. In addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the court had the opportunity
to consider the different positions of Coulter and Nationwide and, in its June 18, 2013 order, held
that the automobile insurance policy Nationwide issued Jeter does not indemnify her for liability that
results from the underlying state court litigation. Incorporating the reasoning of that order here,
Nationwide is entitled to the declaratory relief it requests against Jeter.
For the foregoing reasons, Nationwide’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 42, is
GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 10, 2013

2