Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2220.
March 5, 2004
ORDER-MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2004, The Cincinnati Insurance Companies' "Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or for Summary Judgment" is granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
When deciding a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), a court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of the non-moving party. Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (3d Cir. 2002). The motion will be granted if the pleadings establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On June 19, 1998, defendant Charles Mosley, while operating his motor vehicle in the course of his employment, was involved in an accident with an unknown driver and sustained serious personal injuries. Complaint, ¶ 6, 8, 9; Answer, ¶ 6. He notified Cincinnati and requested compensation under the uninsured motorist provision of the Cincinnati policy issued to his employer, The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company. On April 7, 2003, Cincinnati filed this action for a declaratory judgment asserting that Mosley was not an insured or entitled to benefits under the policy. Complaint, ¶ 7.
Under the Ohio Uninsured Motorist Coverage-Bodily Injury endorsement to the policy, Cincinnati "will pay all sums the `insured' is legally entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an `uninsured motor vehicle' because of `bodily injury' sustained by the `insured' caused by an `accident.'" Ohio Uninsured Motorist Coverage-Bodily Injury endorsement, section A.1., included in Exhibit "B" to plaintiff's motion. The endorsement defines an "insured" as:
1. You.
2. If you are an individual, any "family member."
3. Anyone else "occupying" a "covered auto" or a temporary substitute for a "covered auto."
4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of "bodily injury" sustained by another "insured."Id., section B.1-4.
Given these parameters, Mosley would be an "insured" under the relevant policy provision only if he were "occupying" a "covered auto" at the time of the accident.
Endorsement definitions 2 and 4 do not apply — the insured is not an individual and Mosley is the only one to have sustained a bodily injury relevant to this dispute.
"Covered autos" for the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is limited to "OWNED `AUTOS' ONLY. Only those `autos' you own. . . . This includes those `autos' you acquire ownership of after the policy begins." Business Auto Coverage Form, I.A.2, Exhibit "B" to plaintiff's motion. See also Business Auto Coverage Part Declarations, Exhibit "B" to plaintiff's motion. Inasmuch as "You" refers to Western and Southern, Mosley is not an "insured" unless he was operating a motor vehicle owned by his employer. Mosley admits to have been driving his own car at the time of the accident. Answer, ¶ 6.
Mosley was not using his car as a "temporary substitute" for a car owned by his employer that was out of service on the date of the accident for one of the reasons enumerated in the policy. See Business Auto Coverage Form I.C.3.(a)-(e), included with Exhibit "B" to plaintiff's motion.
As a matter of contract law, the plain meaning of a clear and unambiguous provision in an insurance policy must be given full effect. See Treasure Craft Jewelers, Inc. v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 583 F.2d 650, 652 (3d Cir. 1978). See also Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Ins. Co., 469 A.2d 563, 566 (Pa. 1983);Bowers v. Estate of Feathers, 671 A.2d 695, 697 (Pa.Super. 1995). Here, the terms of the insurance contract are clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, Mosley is not an insured and is not entitled to recover uninsured benefits.
His unsupported argument — that the policy was intended to provide uninsured motorist coverage for employees acting within the scope of their employment at the time of an accident — must be rejected. See defendants' memorandum at 2-3. The explicit, undisputable language of the policy is to the contrary and must be enforced.