Opinion
CIVIL 2:21-cv-03614-BHH-MGB
02-08-2024
Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Paris T. Gadsen, Craig Pinckney, Tanesia Sanders, and Taharqa Generette, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Progressive Northern Insurance Company (“Plaintiff') filed this action seeking a declaration from the Court that the personal automobile insurance policy issued to Defendant Paris T. Gadsen (“Gadsen”) does not provide coverage for any claims arising out of the collision on February 22, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants Craig Pinckney, Tanesia Sanders, and Taharqa Generette were allegedly passengers in Gadsen's car at the time of the collision. On March 16, 2022, the Clerk of Court entered default against Pinckney, Sanders, and Generette pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. Nos. 28; 29.)
On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and submitted a portion of Gadsen's deposition testimony in support. (Dkt. Nos. 51; 51-1.) Because Defendant Gadsen is proceeding pro se, the Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if she failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 53.) The Court included a copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in the mailing of the Roseboro Order. (Dkt. No. 54.) Gadsen's response to the Motion for Summary Judgment was due by December 18, 2023. No response has been filed. Accordingly, the undersigned issues this Report and Recommendation based on the briefings and evidence in the record. For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
BACKGROUND
As noted above, Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action concerning a policy of personal automobile insurance issued to Gadsen with effective dates of September 25, 2020 to March 25, 2021 (the “Policy”). (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) The Policy lists a 2005 Hyundai and a 2005 Honda Accord as insured vehicles. (Id.) The Policy provides bodily injury liability coverage with limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident and property damage liability coverage with a limit of $25,000 per accident. (Id.) It further provides collision coverage for each insured vehicle, up to the actual cash value of the vehicles and subject to a $500.00 deductible. (Id.)
The Policy includes, inter alia, a provision stating the insurer “may deny coverage for an accident or loss if you or a person seeking coverage has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance, or engaged in fraudulent conduct, in connection with the presentation or settlement of a claim.” (Id. at 4.) The Policy further excludes coverage for loss
to any vehicle caused by an intentional act committed by or at the direction of you, a relative, a rated resident, or the owner of a non-owned auto, even if the actual damage is different than that which was intended or expected; [and] . . .
to any vehicle caused by, or reasonably expected to result from, a criminal act or omission of you, a relative, a rated resident, or the owner of a non-owned auto. This exclusion applies regardless of whether you, the relative, the rated resident, or the owner of the non-owned auto is actually charged with, or convicted of, a crime. For purposes of this exclusion, criminal acts or omissions do not include traffic violations.(Id. at 3-4.)
On February 22, 2021, Gadsen notified Plaintiff of an alleged single-vehicle accident that occurred on or about February 21, 2021. (Id. at 5.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants told them that when the accident occurred, “Gadsen was operating the 2005 Hyundai 350 listed as an insured vehicle on the Policy and she was carrying Generette, Pinckney, and Sanders as passengers.” (Id.) Defendants claimed they were “traveling on Featherbed Road in Colleton County when [Gadsen] swerved to avoid tree limbs in the middle of the road,” and “the vehicle came to rest between several trees off the side of the road.” (Id.) “[T]he 2005 Hyundai sustained damages valued at approximately $2,108.22.” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that the “accident did not occur and/or was intentionally staged by some or all of the Defendants.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants submitted a false claim to Progressive Northern in violation South Carolina Codes §§ 38-55-170 and 38-55-540.(Id. at 56.)
South Carolina Code § 38-55-170 makes it illegal to submit “a false claim for payment to an insurer transacting business” in South Carolina. South Carolina Code § 38-55-540 provides that “[a] person who knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation, and any other person knowingly, with an intent to injure, defraud, or deceive, or who assists, abets, solicits, or conspires with a person to make a false statement or misrepresentation” for an economic benefit commits insurance fraud. South Carolina Code § 38-55-550 establishes civil penalties against any person who has violated South Carolina Code §§ 38-55-170 or 38-55-540.
In this action, Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Court that the Policy does not provide coverage for any claims arising from the alleged accident because: (1) no accident occurred; (2) the Policy excludes collision coverage damage resulting from the intentional and/or criminal actions of the insured; (3) South Carolina does not require an insurance company to pay any benefits for a claim resulting from insurance fraud, and (4) some or all of the Defendants knowingly provided false information regarding the facts of the alleged accident in order to make a claim for coverage under the policy. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-8.)
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “‘the nonmoving party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in that party's favor.'” Id. (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)); see also Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
DISCUSSION
In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that summary judgment is appropriate because “Gadsen does not wish to move forward with the insurance claim against Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 51 at 8.) Citing Gadsen's deposition testimony, Plaintiff states that Gadsen “informed Plaintiff that she wished to drop her claim and waive any rights under the policy for the alleged accident.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, the Court should therefore “declare that the Policy does not provide any coverage for the alleged accident on February 21, 2021.” (Id.)
The record shows that during her deposition, Gadsen confirmed that she “consent[ed] to the relief that Progressive is seeking which is to say that there is no coverage related to this matter for any claims that may be asserted by anyone.” (Dkt. No. 51-1 at 5.) She was unequivocal on this issue. (See id. at 4-5, 12.) Based on Gadsen's undisputed deposition testimony, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the Court find the Policy does not provide any coverage for the alleged accident on February 21, 2021. Because dismissal is appropriate on this basis, the undersigned declines to consider Plaintiff's additional arguments for summary judgment.
Additionally, Gadsen's failure to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment further confirms that she is no longer pursuing a claim under the Policy.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 51) be GRANTED and the Court find the Policy does not provide any coverage for the alleged accident on February 21, 2021.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).