United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Stephen M. Doyle United States Magistrate Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
underlying facts of this case pertain to a motorcycle
accident that occurred on July 15, 2017, involving Defendant
Zubin Sarkari (“Sarkari”), who was riding the
motorcycle of Manraj “Patrick” Sidhu
(“Sidhu”), and Defendant Abhiprai Gulati
(“Gulati”), who was a passenger. Sidhu insured
his motorcycle under a policy issued by Encompass Indemnity
Company (“Encompass”). Sarkari and Gulati claim
entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits under Sidhu's
insurance policy for the injuries they sustained as a result
of the accident.
On
January 15, 2018, Encompass filed a Complaint for declaratory
judgment against Sarkari and Gulati. (Doc. 1). Encompass asks
this Court to declare that Sidhu's insurance policy
provides no coverage for the uninsured/underinsured motorist
benefit claim made by Sarkari and Gulati. See generally
Id. Presently before the Court is Encompass's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28); Defendants' response in
opposition (Doc. 32) thereto; and Encompass's reply (Doc.
34). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned finds that
Encompass's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is due
to be DENIED.
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
reviewing court shall grant a motion for “summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Only disputes about material facts will preclude the granting
of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “An issue of fact
is ‘genuine' if the record as a whole could lead a
reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. An
issue is ‘material' if it might affect the outcome
of the case under the governing law.” Redwing
Vehicleriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489,
1496 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248).
Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party
asking for summary judgment “always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for 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 demonstrates the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323.
The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence
showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing
that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in
support of some element of his case on which he bears the
ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.
Once
the movant has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party
must “go beyond the pleadings and by his own
affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate
‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.'” Id. at 324. In doing so, and
to avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The
parties must support their assertions “that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed” by “citing to
particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations[], admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials” or by
“showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the
fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B).
In
determining whether a genuine issue for trial exists, the
court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable
to the nonmovant. McCormick v. City of Fort
Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003).
Likewise, the reviewing court must draw all justifiable
inferences from the evidence in the nonmoving party's
favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. However,
“mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations
are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment
motion.” Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS[1]
On July
15, 2017, Sidhu and his wife invited a group of friends to
their lake home for a party. At approximately 11:00 a.m.,
Sakari and Gulati arrived at Sidhu's lake home for the
party. Sidhu had known Sarkari and Gulati for approximately
five or six years. As Sarkari and Gulati arrived at the
party, Sidhu was returning from a ride on his new Harley
Davidson motorcycle. When Sidhu parked the motorcycle in the
driveway, Sarkari and others approached to look at it more
closely. Sarkari asked Sidhu if he could go for a
“spin” on the motorcycle. Sidhu asked Sarkari if
he had ever ridden a Harley Davidson motorcycle before, and
then gave Sarkari permission to ride. After Sarkari rode the
motorcycle, it was placed in the garage and the garage door
was closed.
Several
hours later, Sarkari asked Sidhu if he could take his
ten-year-old son for a ride on the motorcycle.[2] Sidhu agreed to
let Sarkari take his son for a ride, and assisted Sarkari in
finding the keys. Sarkari then left the house and took a
“short spin in the community” with his son. After
returning from that ride, Sarkari did not put the motorcycle
away but, instead, took Gulati (a nineteen-year-old man) for
a ride. Prior to taking Gulati for a ride, Sarkari did not
explicitly seek permission from Sidhu to take Gulati for a
ride, nor did Sidhu explicitly give Sarkari permission to do
so. Gulati did not ask Sidhu's permission to ride the
motorcycle.
While
Sakari was riding the motorcycle with Gulati as a passenger,
he encountered a section of the road that Sarkari described
as “curvy.” The speed limit on that section of
the road-which is part of the private residential roads of
Sidhu's gated community-is 15 miles per hour. Sarkari was
driving between 30 and 35 miles per hour when he approached a
curve. As he came around the curve, Sarkari saw an oncoming
car in his lane no more than fifty feet away. Sarkari swerved
to avoid the collision and ran off the road. He and Gulati
were ejected from the motorcycle. Neither were wearing
helmets. Sarkari suffered a head injury, and his wrist was
shattered. Gulati suffered a broken left femur, a fracture of
his L2 vertebrae, and a broken wrist. Apparently, the
oncoming car did not stop to assist Sarkari and Gulati.
Prior
to the day of the accident, Sarkari had ridden Sidhu's
previous motorcycle on one or two occasions with Sidhu's
permission. Sidhu testified that he never gave Sarkari or any
other guest “blanket permission” to use any of
his vehicles at will. He further testified that, whenever he
gives someone permission to operate any of his vehicles, he
is Id. at 62. “clear about where I want them
to go, how to drive. I ask the question have you drive[n]
before this thing, are you familiar with this, something like
that.”
Sarkari
and Gulati have made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits
under the insurance policy issued to Sidhu by Encompass. The
pertinent provisions in the policy pertaining to coverage for
Sarkari and Gulati include the following:
INSURING
AGREEMENT
A. We will pay damages which a covered person is legally
entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an
uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury:
1. ustained by a covered person; and
2. Caused by an accident.
B. Covered person as used in this part means:
1. You or any family member.
2. Any other person occupying your covered motor vehicle.
C. Uninsured motor vehicle means a land motor vehicle or
trailer of any type:
4. Which is a hit-and-run vehicle whose operator cannot be
identified and which hits or which causes an accident
resulting in bodily injury without hitting:
a. You or any family member;
b. A vehicle which you or any family member are ...