Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Garmin International, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4978
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Garmin contracted informally with Henry Bartle to install and test a G900X avionics unit in Bartle’s home-built Lancair IV-P; Garmin personnel assisted and Garmin listed Bartle’s company (Ultimate Group) as a supplier in its installation manual.
- No written contract, release, insurance discussion, salary, ownership interest, or management/financial control by Garmin over Bartle or the aircraft was shown.
- In 2008 Bartle crashed his plane while piloting it; passengers sued in California alleging negligence and asserting a business relationship/joint venture with Garmin.
- Garmin’s insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in the D. Kan., seeking a ruling that Bartle was not an “Insured” under Garmin’s policy.
- Bartle submitted over 700 pages of exhibits to oppose summary judgment, but the district court refused to consider most exhibits because they failed to comply with D. Kan. Rule 56.1 (specific, numbered citations to record pages).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse discretion in excluding improperly cited evidence and (2) the properly cited record did not show Bartle met the policy’s definition of “Insured.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by disregarding exhibits that failed to comply with D. Kan. Rule 56.1 | Bartle: e-filing altered exhibit pagination, making specific citations impracticable; court should have sifted record and decide on merits | Insurers: parties must follow local rules; burden on proponent to present properly cited evidence | No abuse of discretion; court properly excluded exhibits not cited per rule |
| Whether Bartle was an “Insured” under Garmin’s policy (definition includes subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures only if Garmin had ownership, control, or insurance obligation) | Bartle: informal joint venture, supplier listing, and collaboration created an insured relationship | Insurers: no ownership, no financial/managerial control, no insurance obligation, no formal JV/partnership | Bartle did not qualify as an “Insured”; summary judgment for insurers affirmed |
| Whether listing Bartle’s bracket supplier in Garmin’s manual established financial/management control or ownership | Bartle: supplier listing shows financial cooperation and partnership | Insurers: a listing alone does not show ownership, control, payment, or insurance obligation | Listing insufficient to show required ownership/control; does not confer insured status |
| Whether the court may consider evidence on appeal that district court did not consider | Bartle: appellate review should consider all submitted evidence to reach merits | Insurers: appellate court reviews only record before district court unless exclusion was an abuse of discretion | Appellate court will not consider excluded evidence absent abuse of discretion; none found |
Key Cases Cited
- Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir. 1990) (summary judgment standard used on de novo review)
- Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., 41 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1994) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Myers v. Okla. Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 151 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 1998) (appellate court does not consider materials not before the district court)
- Roth v. Green, 466 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court’s application of local rules reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to consider evidence not considered by the district court)
- Litton v. Maverick Paper Co., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (D. Kan. 2005) (court ordinarily disregards submissions violating D. Kan. Rule 56.1 and Rule 56(e))
- Biglow v. Boeing Co., 182 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D. Kan. 2001) (court will disregard factual assertions made in violation of D. Kan. Rule 56.1(b))
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) (burden on nonmoving party to present evidence permitting a rational trier of fact to find for it)