Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Crane-Behymer

1

VIKING INSURANCE CO. OF WISCONSIN, a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff, v. TANNER CRANE-BEHYMER, an individual, MATTHEW KUPER, an individual, BRANDON VICTOR, an individual, DARRELL WITT, an individual, and ROOT INSURANCE CO., an Ohio corporation, Defendants.

No. 3:21-cv-00249-HZ

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 1, 2022

Eric Scott DeFreest

George A. Burgott

Luvaas Cobb

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jennifer L. Crow

Scheer.Law PLLC

Attorney for Defendant Root Insurance Co.

OPINION & ORDER

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BACKGROUND

In spring 2020, Defendant Tanner Crane-Behymer crashed a truck, owned by Defendant Darrell Witt, into a vehicle transporting Defendants Matthew Kuper and Brandon Victor, injuring them both. Kuper and Victor sued Crane-Behymer for damages in Multnomah County Circuit Court. See Kuper v. Root Insurance Company, Crane-Behymer, Multnomah County Circuit Court No. 20CV24475 (“underlying lawsuit”). Facing liability, Defendant Crane-Behymer sought coverage under Witt's Viking Insurance policy. In response, Plaintiff Viking Insurance filed suit in this Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant Witt's insurance policy does not require Viking to defend Defendant Crane-Behymer in the underlying litigation or indemnify him for any damages awarded therein. Viking named Crane-Behymer, Kuper, Victor, Witt, and Root Insurance Co. as defendants.^[1]

Six months ago, the Court entered orders of default against Defendants Crane-Behymer, Kuper, Victor, and Witt (collectively, the “defaulted defendants”) for failing to timely appear or otherwise defend this action. ECF 34-37. Defendant Root Insurance, on the other hand, did appear and has defended this action.

Now, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on all claims against the remaining defendant, Root Insurance. Plaintiff also moves for default judgment against the defaulted defendants. Root Insurance does not oppose either motion and did not file a response. Pl.'s Mot. 1. This opinion and order addresses each motion in turn, starting with Plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “a default entered against an insured policyholder, Mendez, should not prevent a [potentially] injured third party from proceeding”); see generally 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2690 (4th ed.) (“As a general rule then, when one of several defendants who is alleged to be jointly liable defaults, judgment should not be entered against that defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants, or all defendants have defaulted.”).

STANDARDS

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of “‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

Once the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to present “specific facts” showing a “genuine issue for trial.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). When a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the Court may not enter judgment for the moving party on that basis alone but instead must evaluate its merits. Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that a district court errs by “grant[ing] a motion for summary judgment where the movant's papers are insufficient to support that motion or on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact”).

II. Default Judgment

When, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, an order of default has been entered against a defendant who fails to appear or otherwise defend, the Court may enter a default judgment against the defendant, but such judgments are ordinarily disfavored. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Our starting point is the general rule that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored . . . . [and] [c]ases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). To decide whether default judgment is appropriate, the Court considers the following factors:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment

A. Undisputed material facts

On April 3, 2020, Defendant Crane-Behymer rear-ended a stopped vehicle, causing injuries to the stopped vehicle's driver, Defendant Kuper, and his passenger, Defendant Victor. Burgott Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 7. Crane-Behymer was driving a 1990 Ford F-150 pickup truck, VIN 2FTEF14Y5LCA30523. Burgott Decl., Ex. 2. Defendant Witt owned or registered the truck, and he had allowed Crane-Behymer to drive it. Burgott Decl., Ex. 1, ¶¶ 10, 28(a), 32.

At the time of the accident, Defendant Witt had liability coverage through Plaintiff Viking Insurance Co. His policy, No. 374699711 (the Policy), covered two trucks: a 1995 Chevy and a 1997 Ford. Kautzer Decl., Ex. 1. His policy did not cover the 1990 Ford F-150 driven by Crane-Behymer. Witt had insured the 1990 Ford under a previous policy, but he removed it in late 2019-well before Crane-Behymer's accident. Kautzer Decl., Ex. 2 (policy including the 1990 Ford), Ex. 3 (policy excluding the 1990 Ford).

The Policy at the time of the accident stated:

We will pay damages for which any insured person is legally liable because of bodily injury and/or property damage caused by a car accident. The car accident must have arisen out of the ownership, upkeep or use of a car. We will settle any claim or defend any lawsuit which is payable under the policy as we deem appropriate.

Kautzer Decl., Ex. 1. It defined an “insured person” as (1) You (i.e., Defendant Witt); (2) a relative; (3) any person using your insured car. Those terms were further defined:

“You” and “your” mean the person(s) shown as the Named Insured on your Declarations Page. You and your also means that person's spouse if residing in the same household.

“Relative” means a person living in your household. This person must be related to you by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, or adoption. Relative includes a ward, foster child or a minor under your guardianship who lives in your household. Your unmarried dependent children living temporarily away from home qualify as a relative only if they intend to continue to live in your household.

Kautzer Decl., Ex. 1. The policy also defined another key term, “your insured car”:

“Your insured car” means all of the following.

(A) Any car described on your Declarations Page, for which a premium charge is shown.

(B) Any car that permanently replaces a car described on your Declarations Page during the policy period. With respect to coverage under Parts I, II and III of this policy, the replacement car will be afforded the same coverage as the car it replaces. Coverage will apply as of the date you acquire the car, but only if you ask us to insure it within fourteen (14) days of its acquisition. Coverage under Part IV and other optional coverages will apply to the replacement car as of the date you acquire the car only if you expressly ask for it within three (3) days of its acquisition. We must also agree to provide the coverage before it will apply. In all other cases, any coverage you request will apply no earlier than the date and time you contact us to request it and we agree.

(C) Any additional car you acquire ownership of during the policy period that does not permanently replace a car described on your Declarations Page, but only if we insure all other cars you own. With respect to coverage under Parts I, II and III of this policy, the additional car will be afforded the same coverage as any other car described on your Declarations Page. Coverage will apply as of the date you acquire the car, but only if you ask us within fourteen (14) days of its acquisition. Coverage under Part IV and other optional coverages will apply to the additional car as of the date you acquire the car only if you expressly ask for it within three (3) days of its acquisition. We must also agree to provide the coverage before it will apply. In all other cases, any coverage you request will apply no earlier than the date and time you contact us to request it and we agree.

(D) Any car not owned by you while being used temporarily by you or a relative. The use must be with the owner's permission. The car must be a substitute for a vehicle described on your Declarations Page which is withdrawn from normal use due to breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction. This provision applies only to coverages provided in Parts I, II and III of this policy.

B. Duty...