Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. 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.
Martin v. James River Ins. Co.
Citation: 366 F. Supp. 3d 1186Docket: Case No.: 2:18-cv-00985-APG-VCF
Court: District Court, D. Nevada; March 22, 2019; Federal District Court
Matthew Martin, a driver for Uber, was involved in a car accident while logged into the Uber app but without a passenger. He sought underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage from his own insurer, which denied full payment, claiming he was providing transportation services at the time of the accident. Martin then sought coverage under Raiser, LLC's policy with James River Insurance Company, but James River denied coverage, asserting that Raiser had waived UIM coverage. Martin contended that Raiser, although named insured, did not meet the policy's definition of an insured and thus could not waive coverage on behalf of the drivers. He also requested additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The court granted James River's motion to dismiss, concluding that Raiser, as the named insured, was authorized to waive UIM coverage for all insureds under the policy. The court denied Martin's request for further discovery, stating that the rule does not apply at the dismissal stage and that Martin failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would alter the outcome. The court noted that under Nevada law, a transportation network company must provide insurance during service periods and may include UIM coverage, which can be waived in writing by the named insured, binding all other insureds. Citing relevant case law, the court reinforced that the waiver by a named insured applies to all associated insured parties. Raiser is identified as a named insured under the James River policy, which does not provide Uninsured Motorist (UIM) coverage due to Raiser's rejection of it via a signed form. Consequently, Martin is not entitled to UIM coverage as Raiser waived it for all insureds. Martin's assertion that Raiser is not an insured contradicts both the policy and Nevada law, which mandates that insurers defend and indemnify drivers and transportation network companies. The court grants James River's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Martin's request for a deferral under Rule 56(d) to conduct discovery on James River's UIM waiver procedures, Raiser's driver application process, and the authority of the signatory of the waiver is denied. Martin failed to specify the facts he aims to uncover or demonstrate their relevance to opposing summary judgment, especially regarding the waiver's validity. The court concludes that it can review the policy and waiver documents without converting the motion to one for summary judgment, as their authenticity is undisputed and the complaint relies on them. The court orders judgment in favor of James River and against Martin, while Martin seeks declarations regarding UIM coverage and the waiver's effectiveness.