United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 19]
IRENE
M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“State Farm”), has filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, presenting the question whether West
Virginia law requires that it pay a pro rata share
of the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the
plaintiff, Dawn Frisenda (“Frisenda”), when State
Farm applies the non-duplication of benefits provision
applicable to Frisenda's underinsured motorist
(“UIM”) coverage. Concluding that State Farm is
under no such obligation, the Court GRANTS
the motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19).
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
Court recites the facts based on the parties' undisputed
submissions, and views them in the light most favorable to
Frisenda, the non-moving party. Providence Square
Assocs., LLC v. G.D.F., Inc., 211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th
Cir. 2000). On March 20, 2015, Frisenda was involved in an
automobile collision with the defendant, Lindsey Floyd
(“Floyd”). Frisenda alleges that Floyd crossed
the center line and struck the driver's side of
Frisenda's vehicle (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2). At the time of
the accident, State Farm's policy with Frisenda provided
$100, 000 of UIM coverage and $25, 000 of medical payments
coverage (“MPC”). Floyd's policy with
Westfield Insurance Co. (“Westfield”) provided
$50, 000 in liability coverage.
Frisenda's
policy contained provisions regarding reimbursement,
subrogation, and non-duplication of benefits. State Farm
retained the right to recover certain payments, as follows:
12. Our Right to Recover Payments
Death, Dismemberment and Loss of Sight Coverage and Loss of
Earning Coverage payments are not recoverable by us.
Under all other coverages, the following apply:
a. Subrogation If we are obligated under this policy
to make payment to or for a person who has a legal
right to collect from another party, then we will be
subrogated to that right to the extent of our
payment.
The person to or for whom we make payment
must help us recover our payments by:
(1) doing nothing to impair that legal right;
(2) executing any documents we may need to assert
that legal right; and
(3) taking legal action through our representatives
when we ask; and
b. Reimbursement
If we make payment under this policy and the
person to or for whom we make payment
recovers or has recovered from another party, then that
person must:
(1) hold in trust for us the proceeds of any
recovery; and
(2) reimburse us to the extent of our
payment.
(Dkt. No. 19-3 at 40). In addition, the policy provided for
the non-duplication of UIM benefits:
The most we will pay for all damages resulting from
bodily injury to any one insured injured in
any one accident, including all damages sustained by other
insureds as a result of that bodily injury
is the lesser of:
1. the limit shown under “Each Person”; or
2. the amount of all damages resulting from that bodily
injury, reduced by:
. . .
c. any damages that have already been paid or that are
payable as expenses under Medical Payments Coverage of this
policy, the medical payments coverage of any other policy, or
other similar vehicle insurance.
Id. at 25.
With
the assistance of counsel, Frisenda settled her claim for
Floyd's $50, 000 policy limits. On July 7, 2016, Frisenda
advised State Farm of her settlement with Westfield, which
was contingent on State Farm's consent, waiver of
subrogation, and full release of Floyd. Frisenda also
reiterated that she had incurred $34, 809.27 in medical
expenses, and demanded that State Farm pay her the full $100,
000 UIM coverage available under her policy (Dkt. No. 33-1).
On August 8, 2016, State Farm responded that it would settle
Frisenda's UIM claim for $5, 707, but failed to address
the pending settlement with Westfield (Dkt. No. 33-2).
Following further inquiry, on August 30, 2016, State Farm
consented to the settlement with Westfield and waived its
right to subrogation (Dkt. Nos. 33-3; 33-4).
On
September 20, 2016, State Farm indicated that, after taking
into account the non-duplication of damages paid as expenses
under MPC, it had determined the amount of the proposed
settlement as follows:
• Medical Bills $36, 716.06
• Future Medical $13, ...