Opinion
Civil No. 2:01-CV-00518
May 6, 2003
Attorneys for Defendant; Paul M. Belnap, Andrew D. Wright, STRONG HANNI Salt Lake City, Utah.
ORDER OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Court on April 8, 2003 at a duly noticed hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed September 23, 2002. Plaintiff Lane Harward was represented by attorney John N. Wilborn and Defendant State Farm file and Casualty Company ("State Farm") was represented by Paul M. Belnap and Andrew D. Wright. The Court has reviewed the pleadings submitted by the parties and has heard oral argument and has granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in part, and has reserved its determination on the personal property issue for future determination following additional briefing. Having granted Defendant's Motion in part, the Court sets forth the basis and details of its ruling as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Consumer Fraud and Unfair Insurance Practices and Deceptions Claims.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that, before the April 8, 2003 hearing, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his "Consumer Fraud" and "Unfair Insurance Practices and Deceptions" claims with prejudice by stipulation filed with the Court. As these claims formed part of the basis of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court therefore rules that such claims are dismissed with prejudice, on the merits. The Court notes that Plaintiffs two remaining claims for breach of contract and bad faith are contract claims under Utah law.
2. Conflict of Laws.
The Court rules as a matter of law that Utah law applies in this matter under the most significant relationship test. The Court has found under the undisputed facts of this case that both parties negotiated and executed the insurance contract in Utah; that performance of the contract occurred in Utah; that the alleged breach of contract occurred in Utah; that Plaintiffs home, the subject of the contract, was located in Utah; that Plaintiff lived in Utah during almost the entire adjustment of his insurance claim; and that this matter was transferred from the Arizona courts on the basis that Utah has the most significant interest in adjudicating this matter. The Court therefore determines that Utah law governs Plaintiffs claims.
3. Undisputed Facts.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden under Federal case law, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Rules of Practice to show that there are any disputed facts that would preclude summary judgment on Plaintiffs bad faith claim, breach of contract claim as to coverage for the structure, and on the issue of interest on Plaintiff's insurance claim. The Court therefore finds that each of the facts set forth in Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts as contained in its Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment are hereby accepted as undisputed and adopted by the Court as the law of the case.
4. Plaintiff's Bad Faith Claim.
Under the undisputed facts of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs insurance claim, in all its respects, presented issues of fair debate that entitled State Farm to further investigate the claim. The Court finds that there is overwhelming evidence that State Farm's investigation was reasonable as a matter of law under the undisputed facts of the case. The Court notes that State Farm's investigation of Plaintiffs insurance claim was based on ample undisputed evidence that indicated the file was of suspicious cause and origin and that the resulting investigation was reasonable as to manner and duration. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs bad faith claim in its entirety as a matter of law.
5. Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim.
Under the undisputed facts of this case, the Court determines that the structure/dwelling portion of Plaintiffs insurance claim was paid in full as State Farm paid the policy limits applicable to Plaintiffs structure/dwelling claim. The Court notes that Plaintiffs counsel conceded at oral argument that State Farm had paid the structure/dwelling policy limits and that this claim was not a part of Plaintiffs breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the Court dismisses as a matter of law Plaintiffs breach of contract claim arising from the structure/dwelling portion of the insurance claim. The Court reserves the single issue of whether Plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action arising from the personal property portion of the insurance claim should be dismissed as a matter of law.
6. Plaintiff's Claim to Interest.
As the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs bad faith claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not entitled to interest on his insurance claim under Utah law as payment on the claim was not due and owing until State Farm had completed its investigation of the cause and origin of the file. Under the undisputed facts of this case, the Court finds that State Farm's investigation was not reasonably completed until March of 1999. As State Farm based its investigation on issues of fair debate and made payment on the insurance claim within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of its investigation, Plaintiff is not entitled to interest on any portion of his insurance claim. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs claim to interest under the policy as a matter of law.
7. Additional Briefing.
At the April 8, 2003 hearing, the Court reserved its determination of whether to dismiss Plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action arising from Plaintiffs claim to personal property benefits under the insurance policy. This is the sole issue remaining in this case. The Court has requested additional briefing on this single issue which is due from Defendant by April 28, 2003 and from Plaintiff by May 19, 2003. The parties are to limit their briefing to this one issue. Furthermore, the parties must base their arguments on the undisputed facts that have been accepted by the Court as set forth above.
Accordingly, it is:
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs claims for Consumer Fraud, Unfair Insurance Practices and Deceptions, bad faith, interest and breach of contract cause of action associated with the structure/dwelling claim are dismissed as a matter of law, on the merits and that Plaintiffs breach of contract claim associated with the personal property claim is reserved for future determination as set forth above.