Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Justin Maurice Moore
763 F.3d 1265
11th Cir.2014Background
- Travelers seeks a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage under the Travelers policy for Moore in underlying Georgia tort actions.
- District Court previously held Moore insured and that the death and injuries were accidents; entered judgment for defendants; Travelers appeals.
- Nov. 12, 2009, Moore used a GTECH van to pursue repossessors; he fired a sawed-off shotgun, killing Thomas and wounding Thackston.
- GTECH had a no personal use policy; supervisor testified Moore lacked permission to chase the repossessors in the van.
- Rhode Island law governs the contract interpretation because the policy was delivered there; Rhode Island presumption (§ 31-33-7) at issue.
- Court held Moore had no permission to use the van for the pursuit, so he was not an insured; judgment reversed and remanded for Travelers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Moore an insured under the policy? | Travelers argues Moore lacked permission to use the van for the chase. | Moore contends implied permission by work use and conduct should cover the pursuit. | No; Moore had no permission to use the van for that pursuit. |
| Does Rhode Island § 31-33-7 apply to this case? | Defendants rely on § 31-33-7 to infer consent from vehicle registration. | GTECH is not a party to the action, and § 31-33-7 does not apply to these facts. | § 31-33-7 does not apply here. |
| Does the absence of permission preclude coverage under the policy’s terms? | If Moore had permission, Travelers would indemnify; if not, no coverage. | Any apparent permission from employment could trigger coverage. | No coverage because there was no permission to use the van. |
Key Cases Cited
- Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standards; resolve ambiguities in movant’s favor)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment movant showing)
- Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2011) (clear error standard for factual findings; de novo review of law)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southeast v. Trimm, 311 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. 1984) (lex loci contractus; contract interpretation governs insurance disputes)
- Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 750 (11th Cir. 1998) (insurance contract interpretation; delivery governs)
- Cheaters, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 41 A.3d 637 (R.I. 2013) (plain meaning rule for insurance contracts)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sullivan, 633 A.2d 684 (R.I. 1993) (Rhode Island insurance contract interpretation)
- Dias v. Cinquegrana, 727 A.2d 198 (R.I. 1999) (policy interpretation; owner liability for driver acts)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999) (state-choice and policy interpretation considerations)