Essex Insurance Company v. Brandon et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTINGMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Essex Insurance Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush on 7/15/15. (cm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS.
MICHAEL A. BRANDON, et al.
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:14CV421
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 21).
On June 17, 2015, the Court entered an order which, in part, gave Defendants 14 days to file
any response to the motion for summary judgment (see Dkt. 25). No response was filed. On July
8, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation stating that the parties have stipulated that there will be
no opposition to the motion for summary judgment and that the granting of the motion would result
in a resolution of all claims herein. Based on this stipulation and as set forth below, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
In its motion, Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company (“Essex”) moves for summary judgment
on its declaratory judgment action against Defendants Michael A. Brandon and Jeanna L. Brandon.
Defendants own Mike Brandon, Inc. d/b/a MJB Construction, LLC (“Mike Brandon, Inc.”). Plaintiff
asks the Court to declare that Essex is not required to defend or indemnify Mike Brandon, Inc. in a
1
suit pending in Ohio. Plaintiff has attached to its motion summary judgment evidence, including the
insurance policies at issue.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence and all justifiable inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Hunt v. Cromartie,
526 U.S. 541, 549, 119 S. Ct. 1545, 143 L. Ed.2d 731 (1999). The appropriate inquiry is “whether
the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden to prove there are no genuine
issues of material fact for trial. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 991 (5th
Cir. 2001). In sustaining this burden, the movant must identify those portions of pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party,
however, “need not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The movant’s burden is only to point out the absence of
evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir.
1996).
2
In response, the nonmovant’s motion “may not rest upon mere allegations contained in the
pleadings, but must set forth and support by summary judgment evidence specific facts showing the
existence of a genuine issue for trial.” Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th
Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255-57, 106 S. Ct. at 2513-14). Once the moving party
makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must look beyond
the pleadings and designate specific facts in the record to show that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Stults, 76 F.3d at 655. The citations to evidence must be specific, as the district court is not required
to “scour the record” to determine whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. E.D.
TEX. LOCAL R. CV-56(d). Neither “conclusory allegations” nor “unsubstantiated assertions” will
satisfy the nonmovant’s burden. Stults, 76 F.3d at 655.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Essex seeks a ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the corporate entity
Mike Brandon, Inc. in Case No. 2012-CV-01580; Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC and Ohio Investments Co.,
LLC v. Hershey Equipment Co., Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio because
that entity is not an “Insured” as defined by any insurance policy Essex issued to Defendants and
because no “occurrence,” as that term is defined by the four Essex insurance policies, made the basis
of the Ohio lawsuit happened during any time of coverage under the insurance polices.
Plaintiff argues that all four Essex insurance policies were issued to “MJB Construction,”
the “Named Insured,” as an “Individual” and not a joint venture, partnership, or other corporate
organization. Plaintiff cites to a provision in all four policies which provides as follows:
3
SECTION II – WHO IS AN INSURED
1.
If you are designated in the Declarations as:
a.
An individual, you and your spouse are insureds, but only with respect to
the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner.
See, e.g., Dkt. 21-1 at 31-32. Plaintiff argues that this designation does not include any corporation
which the individuals may own or in which they may be officers or directors, including Mike
Brandon, Inc. As such, Plaintiff argues, any claims in the Ohio suit are not covered by any of the
Essex policies because the Mike Brandon, Inc. corporate entity is not an “Insured” as defined by any
of the Essex policies. Plaintiff further argues that no “occurrence” as defined by any of the Essex
Policies happened during the coverage periods for the policies.
The Court has reviewed the policies at issue. There being no evidence or argument before
the Court from Defendants to create a fact as to Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds that Mike
Brandon, Inc., the corporation, is a separate and legal entity distinct and apart from any of the insured
individuals who may own that business entity. The Texas corporation known as “Mike Brandon,
Inc.” was not an insured under any of the Essex Policies.
The Court further finds that the occurrence made issue in the Ohio suit happened “on or
about March 4, 2010” which was more than three years after all of the Essex policies expired.
Accordingly, Essex is granted summary judgment on its declaration that it owes no defense and
indemnification in the Ohio suit because the “occurrence” did not happen during any coverage
period.
Based on the record before it, the Court finds that Essex should be granted summary
judgment on its declaration that it owes no defense or indemnification in the Ohio lawsuit.
4
The Court assumes that by agreeing that no response in opposition would be filed to
Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants concede that there is no genuine issue of material fact here. The
Court further notes that the non-movant’s burden in summary judgment proceedings is clear, and
Defendants have not offered any evidence or argument to controvert that of Plaintiff. See Ragas, 136
F.3d at 458; Stults, 76 F.3d at 655.
For these reasons, Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
21) is GRANTED and the Court finds that Essex Insurance Company has no duty to defend or
indemnify the corporate entity Mike Brandon, Inc. in Case No. 2012-CV-01580; Ohio Fresh Eggs,
LLC and Ohio Investments Co., LLC v. Hershey Equipment Co., Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas,
Licking County, Ohio.
Although Plaintiff originally requested the recovery of all costs and expenses incurred in the
.
prosecution of this declaratory judgment action, the parties jointly stipulated that each would bear
their owns costs and fees.
Final judgment will be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 15th day of July, 2015.
.
____________________________________
DON D. BUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
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?