Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Gentile
Docket: Docket No. 03-9067
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 21, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Dentek, Inc., Kamilla Siekierski, Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), and Marie Gentile. The action sought declarations that Ohio Casualty’s car insurance policy did not cover an April 15, 2000, automobile accident involving Siekierski and the Gentiles, and that Ohio Casualty had no duty to defend in a related state court action initiated by Gentile against Siekierski, Dentek, and GMAC. Siekierski, Dentek’s president, was driving a leased 1998 Oldsmobile from GMAC at the time of the accident. Two insurance policies potentially covered the accident: Ohio Casualty's and a Middlesex policy. Ohio Casualty argued that its policy did not cover the Oldsmobile due to an automatic termination provision that it claimed was activated by the purchase of the Middlesex policy. The defendants contended that this provision did not terminate Ohio Casualty's coverage under the circumstances. The district court granted summary judgment to Ohio Casualty, determining there was no material dispute regarding the automatic termination provision’s application. The court found the policy's language to be clear, confirming that the 1998 Oldsmobile qualified as a “designated” auto under the provision and that Dentek effectively “purchased” the Middlesex policy, triggering the termination. On appeal, the defendants argued that the district court abused its discretion by not compelling Ohio Casualty to produce additional witnesses for depositions. However, the appeal was rejected, noting that GMAC did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) in its request and failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit necessary to support claims of inadequate discovery. The absence of this affidavit was sufficient to dismiss their argument. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding all claims presented by the appellants to be without merit, and did not address Ohio Casualty’s argument regarding the flaws in the appellants’ brief. The termination provision specified that the policy would terminate upon the effective date of any other insurance policy purchased for any automobile designated in both policies.