716 F.Supp.3d 612
W.D. Tenn.2024Background
- Century Surety Company issued a Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy to Education is the Key, LLC covering the period pertinent to the incident.
- A minor child, C.F., died after allegedly being left in a vehicle by employees of Education is the Key, LLC—including Dessie X (a/k/a Dessie Tipton) and Faye Eschoe.
- Two wrongful death lawsuits (the “Underlying Litigation”) were filed in Tennessee state court by the child’s estate and next of kin against Education is the Key, Dessie X, and Faye Eschoe, seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages.
- Century Surety seeks a declaratory judgment that its policy does not cover the defense or indemnification of the Defendants in connection with the Underlying Litigation, relying on exclusions in the policy.
- The court considers Century Surety’s motion for summary judgment, which, if granted, would resolve the insurance coverage dispute in Century Surety’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Auto Exclusion | The incident arose from the "use" of an auto, which is excluded. | The negligent act (failure to remove child) was a substantial, non-excluded cause; concurrent causation doctrine should apply. | Exclusion applies; no nonexcluded, substantial cause exists; concurrent causation doctrine not triggered. |
| Application of Criminal Act Exclusion | Criminal Act Exclusion should bar coverage for Dessie X (indicted). | The exclusion is premature; indictment is not conviction; no criminal finding yet. | Exclusion does not apply without finding of guilt; presumption of innocence controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal diversity jurisdiction requires application of state substantive law)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. 1991) (adopting and applying the concurrent causation doctrine to insurance exclusions)
- Clark v. Sputniks, LLC, 368 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2012) (clarifying limits of concurrent causation doctrine in insurance coverage)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Torpoco, 879 S.W.2d 831 (Tenn. 1994) (discussing duty to defend versus duty to indemnify in insurance)