Allstate Insurance Company et al v. CHAPMAN et al, No. 1:2011cv00166 - Document 28 (M.D. Ga. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER granting 25 Motion for Default Judgment. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands on 10/25/2013.(bcl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allstate Insurance Company et al v. CHAPMAN et al Doc. 28 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E MID D LE D ISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBAN Y D IVISION ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, : an d ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY : INSURANCE COMPANY, : : v. : : GINGER CHAPMAN, : BRENT F. J ACOBS, an d : WILLIAM F. J ACOBS, : : Defen dan ts. : : CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-166 (WLS) ORD ER Presen tly pen din g before th e Court is Plain tiffs’ Motion for Default J udgmen t. (Doc. 25.) For th e followin g reason s, Plain tiff’s Motion for Default J udgmen t (Doc. 25) is GRAN TED . PROCED U RAL BACKGROU N D On November 22, 20 11, Plain tiffs brough t this diversity action again st Defen dan ts Gin ger Ch apman , Bren t F. J acobs, an d William F. J acobs as a Petition for Declaratory J udgm en t pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 220 1 an d Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57. (See Doc. 1.) Th e action was brought in relation to claims arisin g out of a vehicle collision that allegedly occurred on May 18, 20 11, which is subject of th e un derlyin g lawsuit curren tly pen din g in the Superior Court of Ben Hill Coun ty, Georgia. (Id. at 12.) Plain tiffs seek a declaratory judgmen t from th is Court rulin g th at Plain tiffs are n ot obligated to provide a defense, coverage, or indem n ification to Defendan ts J acobs under th eir various in suran ce policies as to the suit initiated by Defen dan t Chapman in Superior Court of Ben Hill Coun ty, Georgia. (Id. at 26-27.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com On Decem ber 20 , 20 11, Defen dan t Ch apm an an swered th e complain t. (Doc. 10 .) On May 16, 20 12, Plain tiffs moved for default judgmen t again st Defen dan ts J acobs. (Doc. 17.) Th e Court den ied the m otion for default judgm en t on March 11, 20 13 because Plain tiffs h ad n ot first obtain ed an en try of default. (Doc. 21.) On March 12, 20 13, Plain tiffs moved for an en try of default again st Defen dan ts J acobs. (Doc. 24.) Default was en tered on March 13, 20 13. (See Docket.) Plain tiffs moved for default judgmen t on th e same day. (Doc. 25.) The Court gave Defen dan ts J acobs n otice of the en try of default on April 3, 20 13, an d n oticed Defen dan ts J acobs th at th ey could respon d within twen ty-on e (21) days of th e en try of that order. (Doc. 27.) Defen dan ts J acobs have n ot yet respon ded to th e complain t, an y parties’ pleadin gs, or an y of th is Court’s orders. (See Generally Docket.) FACTU AL FIND IN GS Th e Court makes the followin g fin din gs of fact from the allegation s an d exhibits in Plaintiffs’ com plaint.1 Plain tiffs are corporation s organ ized under the laws of the State of Illin ois with th eir principal place of business and citizenship in Illinois. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 2.) Defendan t Chapm an is a residen t of Georgia. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Defen dan ts J acobs are residen ts of Georgia. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Th e am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 . (Id. at ¶ 6.) On or about May 18, 20 11, a vehicle driven by Defen dan t Bren t J acobs collided with a vehicle driven by Defen dan t Chapman on State Road 11 in Berrien Coun ty, Georgia. (Id. at ¶ 14.) As a result, Defen dan t Ch apman allegedly sustain ed injuries. (Id. at ¶ 15.) On or about Septem ber 14, 20 11, Defen dan t Chapm an brought suit in Superior By operation of a default judgment, Defendants J acobs adm it Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations of fact. Buchanan v . Bow m an, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987). 1 2 Court of Ben Hill Coun ty, Georgia again st Defen dan ts J acobs. (Id. at ¶ 16.) At th e tim e of th e collision , Defen dan t Bren t J acobs an d th e vehicle he was drivin g were in sured un der an in surance policy issued by State Farm In suran ce Compan y. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Defen dan t Chapman ’s lawsuit alleged th at Defen dan t Bren t J acobs was un der the in fluen ce of drugs an d/ or medication s when he operated his vehicle in a reckless man n er resultin g in a collision an d injuries to Defen dan t Chapman . (Id. at ¶ 18.) Defen dan t Chapman also alleged th at Defen dan t William J acobs n egligen tly en trusted Defen dan t Bren t J acobs with th e subject vehicle. (Id.) Defen dan t Chapman seeks compen sation for damages an d injuries sustain ed as a result of the acciden t, as well as punitive dam ages an d lost wages. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plain tiff Allstate Fire an d Casualty In suran ce Compan y (“AFCIC”) issued an Auto Policy to Defen dan t William F. J acobs an d J ean W. J acobs, with effective coverage dates from April 6, 20 11 th rough October 6, 20 11. (Id. at ¶ 20 .) Plain tiff Allstate In suran ce Compan y (“AIC”) issued a Stan dard Homeown ers Policy to Defen dan t William J acobs with effective dates from J an uary 2, 20 11 th rough J anuary 2, 20 12. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Plain tiffs’ action for a declaratory judgmen t pertain s to certain defin itions con tain ed in th e in suran ce policies between Defen dan t William J acobs and Plain tiffs an d th e exten t of coverage provided by th e in suran ce policy between Defen dan t William J acobs an d Plain tiff AIC. Th us, Plain tiffs are seekin g rulin gs from the Court as to the application of th e AFCIC an d AIC policies with Defen dan t William J acobs as applied to th e facts of th is case. D ISCU SSION “Th e en try of a default judgmen t is appropriate ‘[w]hen a party again st whom a judgmen t for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as 3 provided by [th e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] and that fact is m ade to appear by affidavit or otherwise.’ ” Mitchell v. Brow n & W illiam son Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 130 9, 1316 (11th Cir. 20 0 2) (quotin g F ED. R. CIV. P. 55(a)). Before obtain in g a default judgmen t, th e party seekin g such a judgmen t must first seek an en try of default from th e Clerk of th e Court. F ED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). But th e en try of a default does n ot en title a plain tiff to a default judgmen t. Nishim atsu Con st. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Ban k, 515 F.2d 120 0 , 120 6 (5th Cir. 1975). 2 The defaultin g party admits th e movan t’s well-pleaded factual allegation s. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Con sulting, In c., 561 F.3d 1298, 130 7 (11th Cir. 20 0 9) (citin g Nishim atsu, 515 F.2d at 120 6). Th ose well-pleaded factual allegation s must provide a sufficien t basis for imposin g liability on th e defaultin g party. Ty co Fire & Security , LLC v . Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 8 60 , 8 63 (11th Cir. 20 0 7). Th e Court fin ds that it h as diversity jurisdiction over th is declaratory action . 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 220 1. Georgia law applies to the m atters in this case. (Docs. 1-2 at 16, 13 at 48.) In Georgia, clear an d un ambiguous term s of a con tract are con strued accordin g to th eir plain lan guage as a matter of law. Stefan o Arts v. Sui, 30 1 Ga. App. 857, 860 (20 10 ). “Con tract lan guage is un am biguous if it is capable of on ly on e reason able in terpretation .” Id. (citation om itted). First, Plain tiffs argue that the 20 0 7 Chevrolet HHR Defen dan t Bren t J acobs was drivin g at th e time of th e subject collision was n ot covered by th e AFCIC Policy. Th e pertin en t defin ition of “insured auto” in the AFCIC Policy is “Any auto described on th e Policy Declaration s an d th e four-wheel private passen ger auto or utility auto you acquire durin g th e policy period as a replacem en t.” (Doc. 1-2 at 18 .) Th e Court fin ds that th is In Bonner v . City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 120 6, 120 9 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the form er Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 2 4 lan guage is un am biguous. The 20 0 7 Chevrolet HHR was n ot described in th e Policy Declarations section (Id. at 7), an d is th erefore n ot covered un der th e AFCIC Policy. Secon d, Plain tiffs argue th at Defen dan t Bren t J acobs is n ot covered by the AFCIC Policy. The AFCIC Policy defin es an “in sured person ” as follows: “While usin g your in sured auto: a) you; b) an y residen t; and c) an y other person usin g it with your perm ission . While usin g a n on-own ed auto: a) you; an d b) an y residen t relative usin g a four wheel passen ger auto or utility auto.” (Doc. 1-2 at 18 .) The Court fin ds th at this lan guage is un ambiguous. Defen dan t Bren t J acobs was n ot usin g an “in sured auto” an d is not a residen t relative (Doc. 1 at ¶ 32.), an d is therefore n ot an “in sured person ” under th e AFCIC Policy. Th ird, Plain tiffs argue that Defen dan t William J acobs is n ot an “in sured person ” as defin ed by th e AFCIC Policy in relation to th e subject collision . As n oted above, th e contractual language defining an “insured person ” is un am biguous. Because an “insured auto” was n ot in volved in the subject collision , an d n either th e policyholder n or a residen t relative were usin g a “n on-own ed vehicle” (Id. at ¶ 37), Defen dan t William J acobs is n ot an “in sured person ” in relation to th e collision subject to th is suit. Fourth, Plain tiffs argue th at Defen dan t Bren t J acobs is n ot an “insured person” as defined by th e AIC Policy. An “insured person ” is defined by the AIC Policy as “you an d, if a residen t of your h ouseh old: a) an y relative; an d b) an y depen den t person in your care.” (Doc. 1-3 at 11.) “You” is defin ed as “the person n am ed on the Policy Declaration s as the in sured and that person ’s residen t spouse.” (Id.) The Court fin ds th at th is lan guage is un am biguous. Defen dan t William J acobs is “th e person n am ed on the Policy Declaration s as the in sured.” (Id. at 5.) Defen dan t Bren t J acobs is n ot a 5 residen t of the policyholder’s household (Doc. 1 at ¶ 41-42), an d is th erefore n ot an “insured person” under the AIC Policy. Fifth , th e AIC Policy states th at it “do[es] not cover bodily injury or property dam ages arising out of the ownership, m aintenance, use, occupancy, rentin g, loan ing, en trustin g, loadin g or un loadin g of an y m otor vehicle.” (Doc. 1-3 at 25.) The Court fin ds that this lan guage is un ambiguous. Because the alleged injuries subject to this suit arose from a motor veh icle (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 46-47), the AIC Policy does n ot cover such liability. Sixth, the AIC Policy states that it “do[es] not cover bodily in jury or property dam age arising out of th e negligen t supervision by an insured person of any person … arising from th e ownership, m aintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loan ing, en trusting, loadin g or un loadin g of an y … motor vehicle.” (Doc. 1-3 at 26.) Because the alleged injuries subject to this suit arose from alleged negligen t supervision involving a m otor veh icle (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 51-52), the AIC Policy does not cover such liability. CON CLU SION Based on th e foregoin g, Plain tiffs’ Motion for Default J udgmen t (Doc. 25) is GRAN TED . Th e Court en ters default judgmen t as to all six coun ts alleged in Plain tiffs’ Petition for Declaratory J udgmen t (Doc. 1). It is hereby ORD ERED AN D AD JU D GED th at judgmen t be en tered in favor of Plain tiffs an d again st Defen dan t Bren t J acobs an d Defen dan t William J acobs. SO ORD ERED , th is 25th day of October, 20 13. / s/ W. Louis Sands TH E H ON ORABLE W . LOU IS SAN D S, U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
