S. Collins Trucking, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company

Filing 25

OPINION and ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/29/18. (ejs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
S. COLLINS TRUCKING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17CV00039
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Thomas A. Walk, Altizer, Walk and White PLLC, Tazewell, Virginia, for
Plaintiff; John B. Mumford, Jr. and Lindsay L. Rollins, Hancock, Daniel &
Johnson, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Defendant.
In this diversity action, initially brought in state court and timely removed to
this court,1 the plaintiff S. Collins Trucking, Inc. (“Collins”) has asserted a breach
of contract claim against defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company (the
“Insurance Company”) arising out of an insurance policy covering the plaintiff’s
truck.

Collins contends that following an accident involving the truck, the

Insurance Company was required to pay the truck’s replacement cost and failed to

1

Jurisdiction of this court exists pursuant to diversity of citizenship and amount in
controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

do so. The Insurance Company has moved for summary judgment. For the
following reasons, I will grant the motion.
I.
The following facts are taken from the summary judgment record.
In 2014, Collins purchased a Peterbilt 389 Tractor (the “Tractor”) subject to
a loan and security agreement. On October 31, 2016, the Tractor was involved in
an accident, damaging it. At the time of this accident, the Tractor was covered by
a commercial automobile insurance policy issued by the Insurance Company. Also
at this time, Collins had failed to make payments due under the loan and security
agreement, causing the loan to be in arrears.
Collins selected a Peterbilt dealer to assess the damage to the Tractor. The
dealer ultimately determined that the Tractor was repairable. As authorized by the
lienholder, the dealer repaired the damage to the Tractor using an advanced frame
rack with laser alignment.

The dealer also aligned the Tractor’s axles and

confirmed that there was no further existing frame damage because alignment
would not have been possible otherwise. The Insurance Company paid the dealer a
total of $61,925.54 for these repairs.
The Tractor was then repossessed by the lienholder and sold at auction. The
subsequent owner regularly and frequently operates the Tractor and has not had
any problems with the frame as repaired by the dealer.
-2-

The insurance policy in question provided collision coverage that provides
that for a loss resulting from an accident, the Insurance Company will pay the least
of (1) the actual cash value of the damaged property, (2) the cost of repairing or
replacing the property, or (3) $160,000 minus any applicable deduction. The
policy was further modified by another endorsement that provides, among other
things, that the Insurance Company may opt to either pay for, repair, or replace
damaged property.
The Insurance Company contends that it did not breach the policy by
refusing to declare the Tractor a total loss and instead paying only for the Tractor’s
repairs in light of the policy option that allowed the Insurance Company to replace
or repair damaged property.
The motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed and is ripe for
decision.2
II.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To raise a genuine issue of material fact
sufficient to avoid summary judgment, the evidence must be “such that a
2

I will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not
significantly aid the decisional process.
-3-

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In making this determination, “the
court is required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir.
1994).
It is clear from the summary judgment record that the parties do not dispute
any material facts. In its response, Collins concedes that it does not disagree with
the statement of facts set forth by the Insurance Company, including that the
Tractor was repairable and that the policy language did not require the Insurance
Company to pay the replacement cost if the tractor was repairable. Therefore,
summary judgment is appropriate, and I will grant the motion.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendant Progressive
Northern Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is
GRANTED. A separate final judgment will be entered herewith.

ENTER: May 29, 2018
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-4-