Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Raiford et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 02/06/2017. (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
FEB - 7 20l7
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Case No. 3:16cv340
AMY JO RAIFORD, Administrator
of the Estate of Nancy Sue
Walton, and JOSEPH EARL
WALTON, Jr.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court following a bench trial on
a
stipulated
Judgment
record
("Complaint")
Insurance Company
and
on
filed
the
by
("Nationwide")
set forth below,
Nationwide,
held
Complaint
Plaintiff
(ECF No.
for
Declaratory
Nationwide
1) .
For the
Mutual
reasons
the Court will grant declaratory judgment for
order
that
it
has
no
duty
to
defend
or
to
indemnify Joseph Walton in the lawsuit that underlies this case.
BACKGROUND
Nationwide's
under 28 U.S.C.
§§
Complaint
seeks
a
judicial
determination,
2201 and 1332, that it owes no duty to defend
or indemnify Joseph Earl Walton ("Walton") in an action filed in
state court against Wal ton by Amy Jo Raiford,
Administrator of
the Estate of Nancy Sue Walton
(the "underlying action") . 1
purposes of this declaratory judgment action,
For
the parties have
stipulated to the facts respecting Nationwide's insurance policy
and the allegations
(ECF 13)
in the complaint
("Stipulated Facts").
in the underlying action
Based on the
NATIONWIDE' S OPENING PRETRIAL BRIEF
stipulated facts,
(ECF No.
14)
("Pl.
Br."),
the OPPOSITION BRIEF OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH EARL WALTON JR.
(ECF
No. 18) ("Def. Resp."), and NATIONWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF (ECF No. 19)
("Pl.
Reply")
were
filed,
and a
bench trial
( ECF No.
22)
was
held on January 31, 2017.
THE STIPULATED FACTS
Walton
and
Nancy
Sue
Walton,
his
wife,
were
the
named
insureds in the homeowners insurance policy issued by Nationwide
for
the
Facts
period of
1).
At
all
May
15,
times
2014
leading
to May
up
to
15,
2015.
January
(Stipulated
19,
2015,
the
Waltons were husband and wife and shared the insured home.
Id.
On January 19, 2015, Mrs. Walton died. Id.
Amy
Jo
Raiford,
daughter
of
Mrs.
Walton,
subsequently
became administrator of Mrs. Walton's estate and brought a tort
suit against Walton on behalf of the estate.
Id.
at 1-2. After
Both Walton and Raiford are named as defendants.
Raiford, who
has been properly served herein, has declined to file an Answer
or participate in any way.
Nationwide has not moved for entry
of default or for default judgment, preferring instead to have
Raiford bound by the result of this trial.
1
2
receiving notice of the suit,
under a
Nationwide began defending Walton
full and complete reservation of rights and filed this
declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it had no
duty to defend,
and therefore
no duty to
indemnify,
Wal ton in
the underlying action. Id. at 2.
In Virginia,
def end .
it is well-settled that an "insurer's duty to
is broader than [the]
obligation to pay,
and arises
whenever the complaint alleges facts and circumstances,
which
would,
policy."
(2010).
if
Copp
proved,
v.
fall
Nationwide
Consequently,
within
Mut.
the
Ins.
risk
Co.,
to
def end.
the
67 5,
Va.
by
682
the parties agreed at trial that there is
They also
that there exists a
covered
27 9
no duty to indemnify if the Court determines
duty
some of
agreed that,
duty to defend,
a
if
that
there
the Court
is no
decides
decision on the duty to
indemnify must be deferred until after the underlying action is
determined.
The
analysis
in
this
case
therefore
rests
on
the
content of the insurance policy and the facts and circumstances
alleged
in
the
complaint
in
the
underlying
documents are part of the stipulated record.
action.
Id.
Both
(Stipulated Facts,
Exhibit A-B).
A.
The Complaint In the Underlying Action (ECF No. 13-2)
In
that
relevant
Mrs.
negligent
part,
Walton's
conduct
of
the
death
underlying
was
Walton.
caused
(UC
3
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?