Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson

E.D. Arkansas

Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson

DecidedApril 22, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-01029

StatusUnknown

This text of Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson (Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-1029-DPM

MARVIN PATTERSON and GEORGE PATTERSON DEFENDANTS

ORDER Marvin and George Patterson were in a single-vehicle accident in Marvin’s company truck while on company business. Marvin was driving. Canal insured the truck. George sued Marvin in a Mississippi state court, saying he was injured in the accident. In turn, Canal has sued the Pattersons here, seeking a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify in the state case. Marvin's commercial auto insurance policy contained certain unambiguous exclusions, including one about bodily injury to employees acting within the scope of their employment. Doc. 1 at 47-48. Marvin and George were acting within the scope of their employment when they crashed—so no coverage. Because it was a single-vehicle accident, the policy’s uninsured-motorists coverage wasn’t triggered. Doc. 1 at 61. No coverage there, either. Marvin and George haven’t contested these material facts; and Canal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 894 F.3d 967, 971 (8th Cir. 2018).

Because Canal only seeks a declaratory judgment, no hearing on damages is needed. Stephenson v. El-Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 915 (8th Cir. 2008). Motion, Doc. 23, granted. So Ordered. Uv4tel p- D.P. Marshall Jr United States District Judge HA April noas

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF

No. 4:23-cv-1029-DPM

MARVIN PATTERSON and GEORGE PATTERSON DEFENDANTS

ORDER Marvin and George Patterson were in a single-vehicle accident in Marvin’s company truck while on company business. Marvin was driving. Canal insured the truck. George sued Marvin in a Mississippi state court, saying he was injured in the accident. In turn, Canal has sued the Pattersons here, seeking a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify in the state case. Marvin's commercial auto insurance policy contained certain unambiguous exclusions, including one about bodily injury to employees acting within the scope of their employment. Doc. 1 at 47-48. Marvin and George were acting within the scope of their employment when they crashed—so no coverage. Because it was a single-vehicle accident, the policy’s uninsured-motorists coverage wasn’t triggered. Doc. 1 at 61. No coverage there, either. Marvin and George haven’t contested these material facts; and Canal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 894 F.3d 967, 971 (8th Cir. 2018).

Because Canal only seeks a declaratory judgment, no hearing on damages is needed. Stephenson v. El-Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 915 (8th Cir. 2008). Motion, Doc. 23, granted. So Ordered. Uv4tel p- D.P. Marshall Jr United States District Judge HA April noas

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Canal Insurance Company v. Patterson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canal-insurance-company-v-patterson-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack