Thomas Garner and Cammi Garner v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Cincinnati Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute involving underinsured motorist benefits. The court held that genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether Thomas Garner was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he was injured while driving to a patient, and whether the insurer acted in bad faith in denying coverage. The court also denied summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim and directed the parties to request a scheduling conference to set a trial date.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was improper because the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Garner's travel was within the course and scope of his employment.
2. The exhaustion issue did not support summary judgment because the Garners had submitted supplemental authority showing that they obtained payment from the tortfeasor's liability policy.
3. Summary judgment was improper because genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether Cincinnati Insurance fairly investigated and evaluated the claim and whether its coverage denial was fairly debatable at the time it was made.
4. Summary judgment was denied on the declaratory-judgment claim for the same reasons that summary judgment was denied on the breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Garner was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred.
2. Whether the policy's exhaustion provision barred recovery because the Garners had not exhausted the tortfeasor's liability coverage.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Cincinnati Insurance acted in bad faith in denying coverage.
4. Whether Cincinnati Insurance was entitled to summary judgment on the Garners' declaratory-judgment claim.

Disposition

other