State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Weber et al, No. 2:2014cv01005 - Document 20 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(LMK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Weber et al Doc. 20 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., 10 Plaintiff, 11 CASE NO. C14-1005-JCC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. SYLVIA WEBER and JOSEPH GARRETT, 12 13 14 Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary 15 16 judgment (Dkt. No. 15) and supporting documents (Dkt. No 16). Having thoroughly considered 17 the briefing and the balance of the record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby 18 GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND On or around July 10, 2011, a girl, A.W., fell from Defendant Joseph Garrett’s horse and 22 was hurt. Dkt. No. 15, pp. 1–3. Though the horse—named Taz—was Garrett’s, the injury 23 occurred on the property of Garrett’s girlfriend, Monika Glover. Id. Garrett was not insured, but 24 25 Glover and her ex-husband, Mark Glover, had both a homeowner’s policy and a manufactured home policy through Plaintiff State Farm. Id. A.W.’s mother, Sylvia Weber, sued Garrett and 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Glover in Snohomish County Superior Court for her daughter’s damages. Id. Plaintiff State Farm 2 extended a reservation of rights defense to Garrett out of an abundance of caution. Id. at 2. In the above-captioned matter, Plaintiff State Farm seeks a declaratory judgment to 3 4 relieve it of its defense and indemnity of Garrett in the Snohomish County suit. Here, State Farm 5 seeks summary judgment on the grounds that Garrett is not insured for the purpose of its 6 policy with Monika Glover. Monika Glover is not a party to this action. This Court has already 7 entered default judgment against Garrett. Dkt. No. 14. Garrett did not respond to or oppose State 8 Farm’s motion for summary judgment. 9 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. 12 The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine 13 14 Standard of Review dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the case’s outcome. See Anderson v. 15 16 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if there 17 is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. at 18 49. At the summary-judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 19 nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. See 20 Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 Interpretation of an insurance contract is an appropriate legal question to be resolved on 22 summary judgment. Quadrant Corp v. Am. States Ins. Co., 154 Wash. 2d 165, 171 (2005). In 23 24 interpreting the insurance contract, courts are to consider the entire policy and apply a fair, 25 reasonable, and sensible construction as would be given by the average person purchasing 26 insurance. Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 145 Wash. 2d 417, 427–428 (2002). Courts are ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 2 1 bound by the definitions provided in an insurance contract. Id. Under Washington law, an insurance company’s duty to defend only exists where 2 3 allegations may impose liability on an insured person. Truck Ins. Co. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 4 147 Wash. 2d 751, 760 (2002). The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Id. 5 Though courts liberally interpret an insurance company’s duty to defend when reading 6 allegations, someone who is not insured under an insurance policy is not entitled either to a 7 defense or to indemnity under the policy. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Leahy, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 8 1111 (W.D. Wa. 2011). 9 Even drawing all reasonable inferences in Defendants’ favor, Garrett does not meet the 10 11 definition of an insured under the Glovers’ policy. As such, Plaintiff State Farm has no legal 12 duty to defend or indemnify him, and summary judgment is appropriate. 13 B. 14 Joseph Garrett was Not Insured Both State Farm policies held by the Glovers contain identical definitions of insured. 15 16 Dkt. No. 15, p. 9. The State Farm policies read, in relevant part: [I]nsured means you, 1 and, if residents of your household: 17 a. b. 18 19 your relatives; and any other person under the age of 21 who is in the care of a person described above. 20 Dkt. No. 16, Ex. A, p. 19; Ex. B, p. 58 (emphasis in original). 21 In Washington, a relative is a person connected with another by blood or affinity. 22 United Pac. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 15 Wash. App. 70, 73 (1976) (citing Merriam-Webster Third 23 24 New Int’l Dictionary). The Washington Court of Appeals held that an affinity relationship 25 1 You and your mean the named insured shown in the Declarations. A spouse is included if a 26 resident of your household. Dkt. No. 16, Exs. A & B. In this case, Monika Glover and her ex-husband Mark Glover are the only named insured persons under the policy. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 3 1 requires marriage. Id. State Farm concedes that Washington courts have not yet expressly held 2 that a boyfriend or girlfriend is not a relative. Dkt. No. 15, p. 10. However, the Court is 3 persuaded by the holding in United Pacific as well as similar definitions provided by Washington 4 law. For example, the unmarried, live-in boyfriend of the named insured was not considered a 5 member of the insured’s immediate family to trigger coverage, even where the couple held 6 themselves out to others as a married couple. Continental Cas. Co. v. Weaver, 48 Wash. App. 7 607, 610 (1987). 8 Joseph Garrett is the boyfriend of Monika Glover. Dkt. No. 15, p. 3. The two started 9 10 dating around 2010, and were apparently dating at the time of A.W.’s fall. Id. Garrett is about 60 11 years old. Id. He is not related by blood or marriage to either Monika Glover or her ex-husband. 12 Id. As such, he is not an insured person under the State Farm policies in question here. 13 C. 14 Garrett’s Horse is also not Insured The Glovers’ manufactured home policy through State Farm contains a provision 15 16 applying some insurance to animals. Dkt. No. 16, Ex. B, p. 58. There are two parameters to this 17 animal insurance. First, to be insured, animals must be owned by an insured person. Id. Second, 18 animals that are used in the course of a business or without permission of the owner are not 19 insured. Id. Taz the horse was not owned by Monika or Mark Glover. Taz was ridden with 20 permission of its owner, Garrett. Applying the plain reading of both definitions, there remains no 21 genuine issue as to whether the Glovers’ State Farm policies apply to Taz; they do not, as the 22 horse was not owned by an insured person. 23 24 25 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 15) is 26 GRANTED. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 4 It is HEREBY ORDERED: 1 1) 2 Defendant Joseph Garrett is not insured under either State Farm policy no. 47- 3 BB-V787-9 (the homeowners policy) or State Farm policy no. 47-BG-N941-7 4 (the manufactured home policy). 5 2) 6 Neither State Farm policy no. 47-BB-V787-9 nor no. 47-BG-N941-7 provides coverage to Defendant Joseph Garrett for the claims made by defendant Sylvia 7 Weber or A.W. in the liability lawsuit entitled Weber v. Garrett & Glover, 8 Snohomish County Superior Court cause no. 12-2-07303-0, because he is not an 9 insured under either policy. 10 11 3) 12 State Farm has no duty to defend Defendant Joseph Garrett for the claims made by defendant Sylvia Weber or A.W. in the liability lawsuit entitled Weber v. 13 Garrett & Glover, Snohomish County Superior Court cause no. 12-2-07303-0, 14 because he is not an insured under either policy. 15 4) 16 Effective 10 days from the entry of this order, State Farm may withdraw from the defense it is currently providing to Mr. Garrett in the liability lawsuit. 17 5) 18 State Farm has no duty to indemnify Defendant Joseph Garrett in connection with 19 any settlement or judgment directed to the claims made by defendant Sylvia 20 Weber or A.W. in the liability lawsuit. 21 6) 22 State Farm has no obligation to compensate or otherwise reimburse any person or entity for any claims asserted against Joseph Garrett arising out of A.W.’s fall 23 from the horse. 24 25 // 26 // ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 5 1 DATED this 19th day of December 2014. 2 3 4 7 A 8 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE - 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.
