You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Scenna

Citations: 101 F. Supp. 3d 562; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42887; 2015 WL 1499089Docket: Civil Action No. 5:14CV15

Court: District Court, N.D. West Virginia; April 1, 2015; Federal District Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company (State Auto) filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its coverage obligations under a general commercial liability (CGL) policy issued to Alio Scenna. This action arose from an underlying personal injury lawsuit involving a car accident allegedly caused by Alio Scenna, resulting in the death of Michelle Parsons and injuries to Trudy and Michael Malone. State Auto moved for summary judgment, asserting that the CGL policy excludes coverage for auto accidents involving vehicles owned by an insured, which applies to the Scennas in this case due to the nature of the allegations. State Auto contends that Alio Scenna was not parked next to his business but was leaving a bank parking lot, and the vehicle involved was owned by Gina Scenna.

In response, the Malones argue that the Scennas are covered under the CGL policy, or that the policy is ambiguous and should be interpreted in their favor. They claim that prior case law cited by State Auto is not applicable and argue against the applicability of a vehicle ownership exclusion based on the specifics of the accident. They point to the proximity of the accident site to the barber shop as evidence that Alio Scenna should qualify for an exception to the exclusion. State Auto countered that to trigger coverage, one must be an insured under the policy, and the Malones’ arguments about Alio Scenna's employment status do not support coverage.

State Auto argues that the policy in question contains an unambiguous exception similar to one in a prior case (Essex), which exempts the Scennas from coverage. The Court finds in favor of State Auto's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is deemed appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). The initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the absence of such issues, after which the nonmoving party must provide specific facts to create a triable issue. A party opposing summary judgment cannot rely solely on allegations or denials but must present concrete evidence. The Court emphasizes that summary judgment can only be granted when it is clear no factual issues warrant a trial and that the inquiry focuses on whether factual issues exist that require resolution by a jury. West Virginia law applies in this case, allowing the Court to determine coverage without resolving underlying factual disputes. The insured's argument that underlying facts must be adjudicated to decide coverage is incorrect. The duty of an insurer to defend is based on the allegations in the complaint being reasonably susceptible to coverage under the policy, and the Court does not assess the truth of those allegations. State Auto successfully demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

The Malones have not demonstrated any triable issues of fact, leading the court to conclude that coverage questions in the insurance contract are legal determinations. The Malones argue against the applicability of the auto exclusion, claiming that Alio Scenna likely did not have permission to use Gina Scenna's vehicle and was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. However, the court finds the policy language regarding the auto exclusion to be clear and unambiguous, referencing precedents that support this interpretation. The court rejects the Malones' arguments, asserting that if Alio Scenna was not acting within the scope of his employment, he would not be considered an "insured," negating their coverage claims. Additionally, the court notes that the accident was caused by an insured who was using a vehicle owned by another insured, confirming the applicability of the auto exclusion.

Regarding the exception to the auto exclusion, the Malones contend that it should apply because the accident occurred near the barber shop's parking lot. They argue that the language "on, or on the way next to" is ambiguous and should encompass the accident location. However, the court will assess this claim based on the clarity of the policy's provisions and the specifics of the case.

Alio Scenna was driving a vehicle that was either owned, rented, or loaned to him at the time of the accident, which is a crucial finding by the Court. The language of the auto exclusion and its exception is clear and unambiguous, as established in previous cases. The Court has adopted the assertion from the state court complaint that Alio Scenna was entrusted with the vehicle by Gina Scenna. Therefore, the exception to the auto exclusion does not apply, regardless of the accident's proximity to the barber shop. As a result, there are no material facts in dispute, and State Auto is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment has been granted, leading to the dismissal of the case with prejudice. The Court declares that State Auto has no obligation to defend or indemnify Alio Scenna, Gina Scenna, or Al Scenna Barber & Styles under the applicable CGL Policy. Furthermore, the CGL policy does not cover the claims related to the automobile accident involving Trudy Malone, Michael Malone, or Michelle Parsons. The Clerk has been directed to enter judgment and transmit the Court's order to counsel. The Malones' argument that Middlesex did not apply was rejected, as the Court confirmed the vehicle was loaned to Alio Scenna, affirming the relevance of Middlesex to this case.