1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ROBERT BENNETT and MEG CASE NO. C21-1422 MJP BENNETT, 11 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PARTIAL 12 SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 13 HOMESITE INSURANCE 14 COMPANY, 15 16 This matter comes before the Court Plaintiffs Robert and Meg Bennett’s Motion for 17 Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) Having reviewed the Motion, Defendant Homesite 18 Insurance Company’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 26), the Reply (Dkt. No. 31), and all supporting 19 materials, the Court GRANTS in part and RESERVES RULING in part. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Meg and Robert Bennett live in Black Diamond, Washington, where they own a house 22 insured by Homesite. A fire in the home on December 8, 2020 made the residence uninhabitable. 23 (Declaration of Meg Bennett ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 24).) Because the Bennetts own four goats, nine 24 1 chickens, two cats, and two dogs, they initially situated a trailer on their property where they 2 could reside and care for their animals. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) After a month in the trailer, the Bennetts 3 then moved into a home roughly 10-12 miles away but were forced to leave their animals at their 4 residence (save for an occasional allowance for dogs at the rental). (Id. ¶ 6.) Their animals
5 require daily care, and because they believed their home was unfit to use for any purpose, they 6 required a place to wash hands, use a restroom, and take a break from the elements at the 7 property. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) After approximately ten months, they ended up renting a new trailer at 8 their property to live and moved out of the rental home. (Id. ¶ 11.) 9 Homesite has not paid for any of the costs related to the Bennetts’ use of the trailer at 10 their property from January through November 2021, when the Bennetts were residing elsewhere 11 but caring daily for their animals. The Bennetts seek these costs under the additional living 12 expense provision in the insurance policy, which states: 13 If a loss covered under Section I makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by 14 you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living.
15 (Dkt. No. 11-1 at 24.) 16 Homesite offers no opposition to the Bennetts’ assertion that their normal standard of 17 living includes caring for their pets. But Homesite rejects the contention that it has refused to pay 18 for any meritorious additional living expenses, pointing out that it has paid for a primary 19 residence for the Bennetts since the fire up to the policy limits. Homesite also makes a request 20 under Rule 56(d) to be permitted additional discovery essential to its opposition that the trailer is 21 not a necessary increase in living expenses during the 11 month period at issue in the Motion. 22 That discovery includes: (1) depositions of the Bennetts, which Homesite believes will touch on 23 the necessity and costs of the trailer, including possible alternative solutions; (2) document 24 1 discovery related to the initial disclosures; and (3) recently-served interrogatories and requests 2 for production related to the additional living expenses. Homesite summarizes the discovery 3 sought as targeting the following: 4 Whether Plaintiffs attempted to find a rental home that permitted their animals and, if not, what efforts, if any, they undertook find such a rental home; 5 The reason(s) why Plaintiffs moved out of the trailer and into their rental home in 6 January 2021;
7 The reason(s) why Plaintiffs could/could not continue living in the trailer from January 2021 to November 2021; 8 The number of hours each day Plaintiffs remained at their Property taking care of their 9 animals; [and]
10 What evidence, if any, Plaintiffs have that they were unable to use the amenities (i.e. bathroom) in their Home from January 2021 to November 2021. 11 (Declaration of Elliot Harris ¶ 10 (Dkt. No. 27).) Lastly, Homesite points out that there is an 12 appraisal process ongoing which it believes could resolve the issue of what costs related to the 13 pets might be allowable. 14 ANALYSIS 15 A. Legal Standard 16 Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on 17 file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 18 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether 19 an issue of fact exists, the Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the 20 nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty 21 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists where there is 22 sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248. The 23 moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no evidence which supports an 24 1 element essential to the nonmovant’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 2 Once the movant has met this burden, the nonmoving party then must show that there is a 3 genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party fails to establish the 4 existence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
5 matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. 6 B. Additional Living Expenses Regarding Plaintiffs’ Pets 7 In part, the Bennetts’ Motion seeks an order that caring for their pets is part of their 8 “normal standard of living,” as that term is used in the insurance policy. (See Mot. at 8; Dkt. No. 9 11-1 at 24.) On this point, Homesite provides no opposition, factual or legal. Given the lack of 10 factual dispute, this question of policy construction and application is appropriate for summary 11 judgment. See Overton v. Consol. Ins. Co., 145 Wn.2d 417, 424 (2002) (noting that 12 interpretations of insurance policies is a question of law). The Court GRANTS the Motion on 13 this issue and finds that the Bennetts’ “normal standard of living” includes caring for their pets. 14 C. Necessary Increase in Living Expenses Related to Plaintiffs’ Pets
15 The Bennetts’ Motion also seeks an order finding that their insurance policy covers 16 additional costs incurred in caring for their pets for the 11 months where they resided away from 17 their property. The Court RESERVES RULING on this issue, given Homesite’s request for a 18 continuance under Rule 56(d). 19 Rule 56(d) allows the Court leeway to defer ruling on a summary judgment, allow for 20 more time to obtain specific discovery, or deny the motion if “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or 21 declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) creates “a device for litigants to avoid summary judgment when 23
24 1 they have not had sufficient time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap 2 Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 The moving party under Rule 56(d) must show: “(1) that they have set forth in affidavit 4 form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought
5 exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” 6 Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ROBERT BENNETT and MEG CASE NO. C21-1422 MJP BENNETT, 11 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PARTIAL 12 SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 13 HOMESITE INSURANCE 14 COMPANY, 15 16 This matter comes before the Court Plaintiffs Robert and Meg Bennett’s Motion for 17 Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) Having reviewed the Motion, Defendant Homesite 18 Insurance Company’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 26), the Reply (Dkt. No. 31), and all supporting 19 materials, the Court GRANTS in part and RESERVES RULING in part. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Meg and Robert Bennett live in Black Diamond, Washington, where they own a house 22 insured by Homesite. A fire in the home on December 8, 2020 made the residence uninhabitable. 23 (Declaration of Meg Bennett ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 24).) Because the Bennetts own four goats, nine 24 1 chickens, two cats, and two dogs, they initially situated a trailer on their property where they 2 could reside and care for their animals. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) After a month in the trailer, the Bennetts 3 then moved into a home roughly 10-12 miles away but were forced to leave their animals at their 4 residence (save for an occasional allowance for dogs at the rental). (Id. ¶ 6.) Their animals
5 require daily care, and because they believed their home was unfit to use for any purpose, they 6 required a place to wash hands, use a restroom, and take a break from the elements at the 7 property. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) After approximately ten months, they ended up renting a new trailer at 8 their property to live and moved out of the rental home. (Id. ¶ 11.) 9 Homesite has not paid for any of the costs related to the Bennetts’ use of the trailer at 10 their property from January through November 2021, when the Bennetts were residing elsewhere 11 but caring daily for their animals. The Bennetts seek these costs under the additional living 12 expense provision in the insurance policy, which states: 13 If a loss covered under Section I makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by 14 you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living.
15 (Dkt. No. 11-1 at 24.) 16 Homesite offers no opposition to the Bennetts’ assertion that their normal standard of 17 living includes caring for their pets. But Homesite rejects the contention that it has refused to pay 18 for any meritorious additional living expenses, pointing out that it has paid for a primary 19 residence for the Bennetts since the fire up to the policy limits. Homesite also makes a request 20 under Rule 56(d) to be permitted additional discovery essential to its opposition that the trailer is 21 not a necessary increase in living expenses during the 11 month period at issue in the Motion. 22 That discovery includes: (1) depositions of the Bennetts, which Homesite believes will touch on 23 the necessity and costs of the trailer, including possible alternative solutions; (2) document 24 1 discovery related to the initial disclosures; and (3) recently-served interrogatories and requests 2 for production related to the additional living expenses. Homesite summarizes the discovery 3 sought as targeting the following: 4 Whether Plaintiffs attempted to find a rental home that permitted their animals and, if not, what efforts, if any, they undertook find such a rental home; 5 The reason(s) why Plaintiffs moved out of the trailer and into their rental home in 6 January 2021;
7 The reason(s) why Plaintiffs could/could not continue living in the trailer from January 2021 to November 2021; 8 The number of hours each day Plaintiffs remained at their Property taking care of their 9 animals; [and]
10 What evidence, if any, Plaintiffs have that they were unable to use the amenities (i.e. bathroom) in their Home from January 2021 to November 2021. 11 (Declaration of Elliot Harris ¶ 10 (Dkt. No. 27).) Lastly, Homesite points out that there is an 12 appraisal process ongoing which it believes could resolve the issue of what costs related to the 13 pets might be allowable. 14 ANALYSIS 15 A. Legal Standard 16 Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on 17 file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 18 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether 19 an issue of fact exists, the Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the 20 nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty 21 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists where there is 22 sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248. The 23 moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no evidence which supports an 24 1 element essential to the nonmovant’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 2 Once the movant has met this burden, the nonmoving party then must show that there is a 3 genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party fails to establish the 4 existence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
5 matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. 6 B. Additional Living Expenses Regarding Plaintiffs’ Pets 7 In part, the Bennetts’ Motion seeks an order that caring for their pets is part of their 8 “normal standard of living,” as that term is used in the insurance policy. (See Mot. at 8; Dkt. No. 9 11-1 at 24.) On this point, Homesite provides no opposition, factual or legal. Given the lack of 10 factual dispute, this question of policy construction and application is appropriate for summary 11 judgment. See Overton v. Consol. Ins. Co., 145 Wn.2d 417, 424 (2002) (noting that 12 interpretations of insurance policies is a question of law). The Court GRANTS the Motion on 13 this issue and finds that the Bennetts’ “normal standard of living” includes caring for their pets. 14 C. Necessary Increase in Living Expenses Related to Plaintiffs’ Pets
15 The Bennetts’ Motion also seeks an order finding that their insurance policy covers 16 additional costs incurred in caring for their pets for the 11 months where they resided away from 17 their property. The Court RESERVES RULING on this issue, given Homesite’s request for a 18 continuance under Rule 56(d). 19 Rule 56(d) allows the Court leeway to defer ruling on a summary judgment, allow for 20 more time to obtain specific discovery, or deny the motion if “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or 21 declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) creates “a device for litigants to avoid summary judgment when 23
24 1 they have not had sufficient time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap 2 Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 The moving party under Rule 56(d) must show: “(1) that they have set forth in affidavit 4 form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought
5 exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” 6 Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 7 2008). In other words, the moving party must “make clear what information is sought and how it 8 would preclude summary judgment.” Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 266 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 9 2001). “Failure to comply with these requirements is a proper ground for denying discovery and 10 proceeding to summary judgment.” Family Home, 525 F.3d at 827 (quotation and citation 11 omitted). 12 Homesite has identified additional discovery it seeks about the necessity of the use of the 13 trailer and its relation to the Bennetts’ standard of living that is essential to its opposition to 14 summary judgment. The Bennetts assert that their trailer was a necessary expense that permitted
15 them to maintain their normal standard of living by allowing them to care for their animals with 16 an onsite shelter and a bathroom. Homesite wants to investigate this assertion and believes that it 17 will elicit testimony from the Bennetts that could touch on the necessity of the trailer, the 18 availability of alternatives, and the costs. This is supported by counsel’s declaration, which 19 explains the outstanding discovery and the evidence it hopes to develop. This discovery appears 20 essential to Homesite’s ability to oppose summary judgment and contest the Bennetts’ contention 21 that the trailer was necessary to support their normal standard of living. As such, the Court 22 GRANTS Homesite’s request for a continuance of its opposition and the Court RESERVES 23 RULING on this portion of the Bennetts’ Motion.
24 1 The Court understands that the appraisal process is ongoing and that this impacts the 2 timing of the planned depositions of the Bennetts. But the Court has concerns about the length of 3 the appraisal process, which also implicates the Parties’ recently-filed Stipulated Motion to 4 Continue Trail Date and Related Dates (Dkt. No. 33). Accordingly, the Court will set a deadline
5 for Homesite’s renewed opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment after holding a 6 status conference with the parties to discuss the requested extensions of the case schedule, the 7 appraisal process, and other issues raised in the Stipulation Motion to Continue. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The Court GRANTS in part the Bennetts’ Motion and finds that caring for their pets is 10 part of their normal standard of living. But the Court RESERVES RULING on the portion of the 11 Bennetts’ Motion through which they seek a ruling that the cost of the trailer was a necessary 12 expense incurred to meet their normal standard of care. The Court will set a deadline for 13 additional discovery and Homesite’s renewed opposition after discussing the issue with the 14 Parties at the upcoming status conference.
15 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 16 Dated March 26, 2022. A 17 18 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24