Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company v. Paul Mitchell

Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 11-12063
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________________
D. C. Docket No. 5:08-cv-01223-KOB
ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
An insurance company incorporated
in the State of Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAUL MITCHELL,
Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
Scott Alan Mitchell, deceased,
FREE MITCHELL,
Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
Scott Alan Mitchell, deceased,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________________________
(July 20, 2012)
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 2 of 7
Before HULL, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company
(“Argonaut”) brought a declaratory judgment action against the personal
representatives of the estate of Scott Alan Mitchell. The action sought a
declaration that Mitchell was no insured for uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage under a policy issued by Argonaut (the “Policy”) to Mitchell’s employer,
the Madison County Commission. Both parties filed motions for summary
judgment; the district court denied Argonaut’s motion and granted summary
judgment in favor of Mitchell’s estate. No reversible error has been shown; we
affirm the judgment.
In 2008, Mitchell was collecting garbage in Madison County. The garage
truck was driven by Brian Brooks; Mitchell was the helper. In that capacity,
Mitchell was required to ride on the back of the truck, get off at each stop to get
the cans and empty them into the back of the truck and to stand on the platform on
the right rear side of the truck when necessary to run the packer. In the course of
performing his job duties, Mitchell was struck from behind by a passenger car and
2
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 3 of 7
pinned against the right rear platform of the garbage truck. Mitchell died from his
injuries.
The Policy, in relevant part, defined “Insured” as “anyone ... ‘occupying’” a
covered vehicle. The provision of the Policy applicable to uninsured/underinsured
motorist coverage defined “occupying” as “in, upon, getting in, on, or off.” The
issue at the heart of this appeal is whether Mitchell was “occupying” the garbage
truck -- getting on or getting off -- at the time of the accident.
The facts presented by both sides are in conflict about precisely where
Mitchell was when he was struck by the passenger car. Argonaut asserts that
testimony shows that Mitchell was off the truck for eight to twelve seconds or
more, standing on the ground at the left rear or at the middle of the rear of the
garbage truck at the time of impact. Mitchell’s estate asserts that testimony shows
that Mitchell’s feet were on the ground at the rear of the truck a mere split second
before he was struck; he was in the process of ascending or descending the truck
platform. Because conflicting evidence existed on the factual question of whether
Mitchell was in the act of getting on or off the garbage truck at the time of impact,
the magistrate judge recommended that both motions for summary judgment be
denied. After examining Alabama case law on what constitutes “occupying” for
3
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 4 of 7
purposes of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, the district court
concluded that this conflict in the evidence was immaterial.
Two Alabama cases address the term “occupying” when that term is defined
as it is defined in the Argonaut policy. See Lambert v. Coregis Ins. Co., 950 So.2d
1156 ) (Ala. 2006) and Cook v. Aetna Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 1169 (Ala. 1995). In
both cases, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that “occupying” as used in the
Argonaut policy was not ambiguous. See Lambert, 950 So.2d at 1162-64; Cook,
661 So.2d at 1173. The facts of these cases are distinguishable: Lambert
examined whether the claimant was “on” or “upon” the insured vehicle; Cook
examined whether the claimant was “getting in” the insured vehicle. As such,
these cases provide guidance -- but do not control -- the instant case which turns
on the meaning of “getting on” and “getting off” the insured vehicle.
We know from Cook that “occupy” imposes no “rigid requirement of
physical contact” between the claimant and the insured vehicle. Cook, 661 So.2d.
at 1173. And we know from Lambert that “Alabama has not adopted a specific
test under which to examine the phrase ‘in, upon, getting in, on, out or off’ ... to
determine whether a person is ‘occupying’ a vehicle in the context of the
insurance agreement.” Lambert, 950 So. 2d at 1160. The Alabama Supreme
Court noted that other jurisdictions had adopted specific tests:
4
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 5 of 7
These tests include requiring the person injured to be ‘vehicle
oriented,’ requiring the person to be in close proximity to the insured
vehicle, and requiring actual physical contact with the vehicle. The
majority of jurisdictions hold that the meaning of the term
‘occupying’ must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending
on the facts of the accident and the use of the vehicle, and that there
must always be some causal connection between the injuries and the
use of the vehicle.
Id. at 1160-61. Although the Alabama Supreme Court did not take the occasion to
adopt any of these tests -- the physical contact requirement had been rejected in
Cook -- the Court, in Lambert, did observe that the plaintiff met none of the listed
tests; that no causal connection between injuries suffered and use of the vehicle
had been shown; and that the plaintiff was not vehicle oriented at the time of
impact because he was engaged in no activity essential to the use of the insured
vehicle. Id. at 1161.
As more fully set out in the district court’s opinion, the undisputed material
facts show -- and Argonaut concedes -- a causal connection exists between
Mitchell’s use of the insured truck and the accident. But for Mitchell’s use of the
truck to fulfill his employment responsibilities he would not have been at the rear
of the truck at the time he was struck.
The intended use of the sanitation truck was to collect garbage along the
route. Argonaut knew it was insuring a sanitation truck. And Mitchell’s use of
5
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 6 of 7
that truck -- including his repeatedly getting on and getting off of the truck -- was
an expected (indeed, required) use of that truck. As the district court observed, the
term “occupying” as defined in the policy should be given a more expansive
reading in the context of a sanitation truck than might otherwise apply in the
context of a passenger car.
While the facts are disputed about precisely where Mitchell stood just
before impact, the undisputed material facts show that Mitchell was “vehicle
oriented” when struck: he was facing the rear of the truck, standing in close
proximity to the truck, and engaging in acts essential to the use of the sanitation
truck.
After a thorough review of the record and Alabama precedent, the district
court reached this conclusion:
Taking into account the use of the insured vehicle, the
causal connection between that use and the accident,
Scott Mitchell’s close proximity to the right rear
platform of the truck, his position facing that platform
when he was struck from behind, nothing remained to be
completed in his approach to the truck, and his
engagement in a transaction essential to the use of that
vehicle, the court concludes that no reasonable jury
considering these undisputed facts would find that Scott
Mitchell was not ‘occupying’ the truck at the time he
was fatally injured.
6
Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 7 of 7
We agree. The undisputed material facts support the court’s conclusion that
Mitchell was “occupying” the sanitation truck at the time of the accident as that
term is used in the Argonaut policy.*
AFFIRMED.
*
The district court offered an alternative basis for concluding that Mitchell was an insured
under the Argonaut policy for uninsured/underinsured coverage: because Mitchell would qualify
as an insured for liability coverage, he also must qualify as an insured for uninsured/underinsured
coverage. Our affirmance of the district court judgment does not consider this alternative basis.
7