J.M. by Evans v. Hatfield

596 F.Supp.3d 796

J.M., a minor, age 4, BY his Court Appointed Guardian, Patricia EVANS, and Michelle Vannoy, Plaintiffs

v.Melissa D. HATFIELD and Anna Brown, Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:21-CV-00041-JHM

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division.

Signed April 1, 2022

Wendell R. Holloway, Madisonville, KY, for Plaintiffs.

Elizabeth M. Bass, Walters Richardson, PLLC, Hendersonville, TN, Melissa T. Richardson, Walters Richardson, PLLC, Lexington, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment by Defendants, Melissa D. Hatfield and Anna Brown. [DN 16]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion

is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART .

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Michelle Vannoy and J.M. were the occupants of a vehicle owned by Roger Evans. [DN 1-2 ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 8]. Vannoy was driving the vehicle when she was allegedly rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Defendant Melissa Hatfield. [Id. at ¶¶ 3, 5]. Vannoy and J.M. were injured. [Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9]. The vehicle that Hatfield was driving is owned by Defendant Anna Brown [Id. at ¶ 10] and insured by Lighthouse Casualty Company ("Lighthouse"). After the accident, Lighthouse filed an interpleader action in Vanderburgh Superior Court in Indiana court to permit the distribution of the insurance proceeds to all claimants. [DN 16-5]. Lighthouse named a number of individuals to its interpleader action, including J.M., Vannoy, Hatfield, and Brown. Lighthouse submitted proof of service for J.M., Vannoy, and Brown and indicated that Hatfield was represented by counsel. [DN 16-10, DN 16-11]. On November 12, 2020, Lighthouse filed a motion to deposit funds and for summary declaratory judgment which informed the court that the participating claimants, including minor J.M., had agreed on a disbursement of the $50,000 policy limits. [DN 16-11]. On December 3, 2020, defendants to the interpleader action, J.M. and three other individuals who were injured—M.H., James Hicks, and L.F.—filed a joint motion to consent to entry of Lighthouse's declaratory summary judgment, deposit of funds, and motion to disburse the funds. [DN 16-12].

Prior to the resolution of the interpleader action, J.M. and Vannoy filed a separate lawsuit (hereinafter "the first negligence action") arising out of the subject accident in Hopkins Circuit Court on November 25, 2019, against Hatfield, Brown, and Lighthouse. [DN 16-16]; J.M. v. Hatfield , Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-183-JHM. Lighthouse removed that suit to federal court. [DN 16-17]. Lighthouse then moved to dismiss the case against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. [DN 16-18]. The Court agreed and granted Lighthouse's motion to dismiss on April 23, 2020. [DN 16-19]. On April 27, 2020, the Court entered an Order requiring plaintiffs to the first negligence action to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the remaining claims based on plaintiffs’ failure to properly serve defendants Hatfield and Brown. [DN 16-20]. After granting J.M. and Vannoy an additional 90 days to effectuate service on Hatfield and Brown, the Court issued another Show Cause Order on October 13, 2020. [DN 16-22]. Eventually, the first negligence action was dismissed "without prejudice" on March 17, 2021, because plaintiffs failed to serve either remaining defendant. [DN 16-23].

On March 17, 2021, J.M. and Vannoy filed a new complaint in the Hopkins Circuit Court against Defendants Melissa Hatfield and Anna Brown, alleging they were liable for damages resulting from the accident. [DN 1-2]. Hatfield removed the matter to federal court and answers were filed by both Defendants. [DN 1, DN 5, DN 8]. Hatfield and Brown have now filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that (1) Vannoy's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the statute of limitations had run before her complaint was filed and (2) J.M.’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss

Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court "must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff," League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen , 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), "accept all well-pled factual allegations as true[,]" id. , and determine whether the "complaint states a plausible claim for relief[,]" Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Under this standard, the plaintiff must provide the grounds for his or her entitlement to relief which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A plaintiff satisfies this standard only when he or she "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A complaint falls short if it pleads facts "merely consistent with a defendant's liability" or if the alleged facts do not "permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 678, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Instead, the allegations must " ‘show[ ] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ " Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ).

In resolving motions to dismiss, a court may consider the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to or incorporated by reference into the complaint, matters of public record, and records of which the Court may take judicial notice. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. , 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) ; Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). If "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court" when ruling upon a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Federal Rules require that "the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

B. Summary Judgment

Before the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and identifying that portion of the record that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Although the Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some "metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Vannoy's Claims

Defendants argue that Vannoy's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the statute of limitations had run before her complaint was filed. Specifically, Defendants provide evidence that following the accident, Michelle Vannoy sought treatment for her alleged injuries. Vannoy's insurer, Kentucky Farm Bureau, provided Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Benefits on behalf of Vannoy for her medical expenses allegedly incurred because of the subject accident in the form of reimbursement payments made to her medical providers. [DN 16-24]. Vannoy's PIP coverage was exhausted on April 5, 2018, which was the date of the final payment made on her behalf. [Id. ]. Because the present lawsuit was filed by Vannoy more than two years and eleven months after the date of the last PIP payment, Defendants argue that Vannoy's complaint is therefore time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. [DN 16 at 6–9]. Because Defendants utilized matters outside the pleadings, the Court will review facts under the summary judgment standard of review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

1. Statute of Limitation

Kentucky's Motor Vehicle Reparations Act "sets the applicable limitations period for claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident." Wilson v. Butzin , 854 F. Appx 682, 685 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Interlock Indus., Inc. v. Rawlings , 358 S.W.3d 925, 927–28 (Ky. 2011) (explaining that the Act applies to "accidents occurring in [Kentucky] and arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" (emphasis and citation omitted)); see Atl. Richfield Co. v. Monarch Leasing Co. , 84 F.3d 204, 205 (6th Cir. 1996) (explaining that "[t]he statute of limitations of the forum state applies in federal diversity cases")). Under the Act, Vannoy "was required to commence this action within two years of ‘the date of issuance of the last basic or added reparation payment made by any reparation obligor.’ " Wilson , 854 F. Appx at 685 (quoting KRS § 304.39-230(6) ); see also Beaumont v. Zeru , ...