Robert Nelson Rector v. Kimberly Kay Rector and State Farm Fire and Casualty, 16-0867

Background

Robert Nelson Rector sued his wife (Kimberly Kay Rector) for negligence after she shot him on Aug. 4, 2015, and sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm insurance policies covered his medical expenses and other damages (Count II).
State Farm issued both a homeowner’s policy for the marital residence and a professional liability umbrella policy to Rector; both policies contained an exclusion for “bodily injury or personal injury to any insured.”
Rector asserted he had moved out of the marital home 18 days before the shooting and therefore claimed he was not an “insured” under the homeowner’s policy definitions on the date of the incident.
Rector served discovery but moved for additional discovery under Rule 56(f) after State Farm moved for summary judgment arguing the insured-exclusion barred coverage; his Rule 56(f) affidavit was conclusory and did not identify specific facts discoverable that would create a material dispute.
The circuit court granted State Farm summary judgment, concluding the exclusion unambiguously barred coverage because Rector was a named insured under the policies.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, finding Rector failed to justify further discovery, failed to show the severability clause altered insured status, and presented no basis to revisit prior precedents holding such exclusions valid.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was premature because Rector needed additional discovery under Rule 56(f)	Rector said discovery (notably deposing his wife) was necessary to show he was not a resident/insured on the shooting date	State Farm argued the exclusion applied and discovery was unnecessary; it produced discovery responses before judgment	Denied — Rector’s Rule 56(f) affidavit was conclusory and failed Powderidge factors; summary judgment proper
Whether the “any insured” exclusion bars coverage for Rector’s injuries	Rector argued he was not an insured under policy definitions because he had moved out before the shooting	State Farm contended Rector was a named insured under both policies and the exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage	Held — exclusion is clear and excludes Rector as an insured; no coverage
Whether the homeowner policy’s severability clause defeats the insured-exclusion by altering insured status	Rector claimed severability could place his wife in the position of named insured and remove his insured status	State Farm maintained severability does not rewrite or negate unambiguous exclusions	Held — severability does not alter named-insured status or negate an unambiguous exclusion
Whether court should reconsider precedent (Clendenen, Sayre) or find public policy requires coverage despite the exclusion	Rector urged reconsideration, arguing public policy favors compensating negligently injured spouses	State Farm and Court relied on existing precedent holding insured-exclusions are not against public policy	Held — Court declined to revisit precedent; public policy does not create coverage where policy unambiguously excludes it

Key Cases Cited

West Virginia Dep’t of Transp., Div. of Highways v. Robertson, 217 W.Va. 497, 618 S.E.2d 506 (de novo review for summary judgment)
Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 495 (de novo review for declaratory judgment)
Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Prop., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 (Rule 56(f) standards for discovery before summary judgment)
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (weight of Rule 56(f) affidavit; noncompliance justifies denying discovery claim)
Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234 (4th Cir.) (importance of detailed Rule 56(f) affidavit)
Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Clendenen, 238 W.Va. 249, 793 S.E.2d 899 (severability clause does not negate unambiguous exclusions)
Rich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 191 W.Va. 308, 445 S.E.2d 249 (bodily-injury-to-insured exclusion not against public policy)
Coffindaffer v. Coffindaffer, 161 W.Va. 557, 244 S.E.2d 338 (abrogation of interspousal immunity; public policy on spousal recovery)