Owners Insurance Company v. Dockstader
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/28/2018. (eat)
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
vs.
Case No. 2:18CV173DAK
JACOB TAYLOR DOCKSTADER,
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Jacob Taylor Dockstader’s Motion to
Dismiss. On August 1, 2018, the court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Plaintiff
Owners Insurance Company was represented by Anna Nelson and Marianne Schumann, and
Defendant Dockstader was represented by William E. Frazier. After hearing argument, the court
took the matter under advisement. The court has considered the memoranda and other materials
submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motions. Now being fully
advised, the court issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND
On October 14, 2014, Defendant Jacob Taylor Dockstader struck Thomas Brooks in the
head with a dumbbell at Deseret Palms Health & Fitness Club in St. George, Utah. The blow left
Brooks unconscious and bleeding from his head. Brooks was transported to the hospital, where
he underwent emergency surgery and remained hospitalized for a week. The State of Utah
charged Dockstader with aggravated assault. On July 15, 2015, after a bench trial, a state court
judge found Dockstader guilty of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony. Dockstader was
sentenced on August 25, 2015.
On February 6, 2017, Brooks brought a civil lawsuit against Dockstader in Fifth Judicial
District Court for Washington County, Utah, seeking more than $300,000 in damages in
connection with the incident that allegedly left Brooks disabled with a permanent traumatic brain
injury. Brooks’ state court action against Dockstader originally alleged two alternative causes of
action: (1) negligence and (2) assault and battery. Brooks’ Complaint alleged the facts involved
in the incident and then alleged, alternatively, that Dockstader either negligently struck him with
the dumbbell due to a misjudgment about the distances involved or that he intentionally hit him
with the dumbbell.
On March 1, 2017, Dockstader demanded that Plaintiff Owners Insurance Company
defend and indemnify Dockstader from Brooks’ civil suit under an insurance policy Owners
issued to Dockstader’s parents. On February 28, 2018, Owners filed the Complaint in this case,
seeking a declaratory judgment that Owners has no duty to defend or indemnify Dockstader from
the claims presented in Brooks’ civil state court action. The Complaint alleges that Dockstader’s
assault on Brooks was not an “occurrence” covered by the policy. In addition, Owners’ alleges
that Dockstader’s assault, which was previously alleged and proven against Dockstader in the
felony case against him, was excluded under the policy’s exclusionary clause. Finally, Owners
asserts in its Complaint that it has no duty to defend Dockstader in Brooks’ suit against him
because the claims are not covered by the policy. As exhibits to the Complaint, Owners attached
a copy of the docket in the state criminal case against Dockstader and a copy of the Complaint in
Brooks’ state civil action.
2
On April 10, 2018, the court in Brooks’ state civil action dismissed the assault and battery
cause of action with prejudice based on a stipulation by the parties. Therefore, the only
remaining claim in the state civil action is the negligence claim.
DISCUSSION
Dockstader’s Motion to Dismiss
Dockstader seeks dismissal of Owners’ Complaint, arguing that Owners’ Complaint for
declaratory judgment is based entirely on the claims brought in Brooks’ state civil action and an
exclusion in the insurance policy for injury that is “reasonably expected or intended by the
insured.” Dockstader contends that the only allegations in the state court action supporting
Owners’ claims that it has no duty to defend or indemnify were in relation to the assault and
battery cause of action, which the parties to the state court action stipulated to have dismissed.
However, Owners argues that Dockstader’s motion to dismiss ignores the allegations in Owners’
Complaint and erroneously asserts that the entire basis for the Complaint is the allegations
against Dockstader in the state civil action.
Owners’ Complaint alleges that because Dockstader was convicted of aggravated assault
in connection with the events giving rise to the underlying action, he is not entitled to coverage
under the insurance policy at issue. Where an insurance policy makes the duty to defend or
indemnify conditional on “whether the claim or suit was ‘covered’ by the policy,” the court must
consider evidence outside the allegations of the underlying complaint to determine coverage.
Fire Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Therkelsen, 2001 UT 48, ¶ 24, 27 P.3d 555. “[A] court cannot limit
its analysis of the duty to defend to the face of the complaint when the plain language of the
policy directs otherwise.” Equine Assisted Growth & Learning Ass’n v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.,
3
2011 UT 49, ¶ 21, 266 P.3d 733. The issue of whether the court’s evaluation should include
extrinsic evidence “hinges on the particular contractual terms of the insurance policy defining the
scope of the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify.” Fire Ins. Exch., 2001 UT 48, ¶ 22.
In this case, Owners’ Complaint sets out the determinative contractual language from the
policy at issue. The policy indicates that it provides indemnification for damages “arising out of
bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies.”
Compl. ¶ 16. The policy similarly provides that the insurer will defend only against claims or
suits for “damages covered by this policy.” Id. Under those provisions, the insured is only
entitled to defense or indemnification if the damages are, objectively speaking, covered by the
policy. Damage claims, under the policy, are only covered if they were caused by an
“occurrence,” which is defined in the policy as “an accident.” Id. ¶ 16-17.
Owners’ contends that if the objective facts show that the underlying event was not
accidental, the policy provides no coverage for that event regardless of whether the claim is
stated in negligence or intentional tort. Owners asserts that it adequately alleges conduct giving
rise to the underlying action that is not covered by the insurance policy as a matter of objective
fact.
The Complaint clearly alleges that Dockstader was tried and found guilty of aggravated
assault, a second-degree felony, for the events giving rise to the underlying action. Dockstader
does not now contend that the underlying action is based on anything other than the same
conduct for which he was found to have committed an intentional felony assault. Under Utah
law, the adequacy of the Complaint does not depend solely on the allegations made in the
underling action.
4
Dockstader contends that the court must accept the allegations in the underlying state
court action over the allegations in Owners’ Complaint because the complaint in the state civil
action is an exhibit to Owner’s Complaint in this action. “[I]f there is any dispute between the
allegations in the complaint and the content of [an] attached exhibit, the exhibit controls.
Brokers’ Choice of Am. Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081, 1101 (10th Cir. 2017).
Although this case law states that the terms of an exhibit to a complaint control over the
allegations of the complaint, such case law is intended to apply in situations where a party may
misconstrue or attempt to characterize terms in a document when making allegations regarding
the document in its Complaint. The case law merely stands for the proposition that the document
speaks for itself. The use of such case law in the present situation is without merit. Moreover, in
this case, Owners’ Complaint also attaches the docket in the criminal action as an exhibit. Under
Dockstader’s arguments, that criminal docket would also control over the allegations of Owners’
Complaint.
The court concludes that the Owners’ Complaint is adequate because it contains clear
allegations of every element needed for declaratory relief: (1) the insurance policy does not cover
intentional conduct; (2) coverage under the policy is only available where the events giving rise
to the suit were accidental as a matter of objective fact; and (3) Dockstader’s actions which gave
rise to the underlying action were intentional and non-accidental as demonstrated by his
conviction for aggravated assault. The Complaint gives notice of the nature of the action, states a
cause of action recognized by law, and provides adequate facts supporting that cause of action.
Therefore, the court concludes that there are no grounds for dismissal of the Complaint.
As a final argument, Dockstader contends that the case should be dismissed or Owners
5
should be required to amend its Complaint because Owners has not attached the actual policy as
an exhibit to its Complaint. The court is unaware of any case law requiring a party to attach
exhibits or face dismissal. Owners has alleged the terms of the insurance policy in good faith.
The parties can exchange documents under the appropriate rules of discovery. If the allegations
regarding the terms are not accurate, the parties can move upon such inconsistencies at that time.
However, the court cannot conclude that the mere failure to attach an exhibit is a proper basis for
dismissing the action or requiring Owners to amend.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL,
United States District Judge
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?