Government Employees Insurance Company v. Elenbaas

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01786
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE

11 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01786-RAJ INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JOSEPH RENIER ELENBAAS and 15 MELANIE W. ELENBAAS (marital community) and KEITH L. COX (an 16 individual),

17 Defendants.

18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Government Employees 19 Insurance Company (“GEICO”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. # 16. 20 GEICO initially filed a declaratory judgment action in this Court pertaining to a 21 motor vehicle accident between Defendants Joseph Renier Elenbaas and Melanie W. 22 Elenbaas (collectively, “Defendants Elenbaas”) and Keith L. Cox (“Defendant Cox”). In 23 June of 2021, GEICO and Defendants Elenbaas entered into a contract for motor vehicle 24 insurance. Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 3.1. The policy spanned from June 18, 2021, through January 25 26 1 18, 2022, and covered two vehicles: (1) a 1995 Ford Explorer and (2) a 2005 Ford Focus 2 ZX5. Id. at ¶¶ 3.2, 3.4. 3 On January 6, 2022, Defendants Elenbaas’ 1990 Ford F150, which was not listed 4 on the policy, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant Cox. Id. at ¶¶ 5 3.7 – 3.8 (emphasis added). Defendants Elenbaas and Defendant Cox are presently 6 litigating this incident in Whatcom County. Id. at ¶ 3.9. GEICO filed the instant lawsuit 7 requesting that it is entitled to a declaration that the insurance policy with Defendants 8 Elenbaas explicitly precludes coverage for the 1990 Ford F150. Id. at ¶ 5.2. 9 Additionally, GEICO seeks a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify 10 Defendants Elenbaas for the motor vehicle accident under the insurance policy at issue. 11 Id. at ¶ 5.3. 12 While the affidavits and declarations provided by counsel for GEICO have given 13 the Court sufficient information to rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment (the 14 “Motion”), the procedural posture GEICO has employed throughout this litigation 15 confounds the Court. Five days after the Clerk entered default against Defendants 16 Elenbaas, GEICO filed its Motion.1 Because the Motion concerns the policy issued to 17 Defendants Elenbaas only, the Court is wary of Defendant Cox’s inclusion as a named 18 party in this case. Buttressing this concern is the conclusion of GEICO’s Motion, which 19 states, “Defendant’s [sic] Elenbaas’ 1990 Ford F150 was never listed or otherwise 20 insured under the GEICO policy. As such, GEICO respectfully requests that this Court 21 grant GEICO’s motion for summary judgment.” Dkt. # 16 at 8. There is no mention of 22 Defendant Cox in the conclusion. 23 Further muddying the procedural waters is GEICO’s Reply.2 While the Court 24

25 1 GEICO did not file a motion for default judgment after the Clerk entered default against Defendants Elenbaas. 26 2 None of the Defendants responded to GEICO’s Motion. 1 admonishes, but is not concerned with, GEICO incorrectly labeling itself a defendant and 2 Defendants Elenbaas and Defendant Cox as plaintiffs, it questions the consistent 3 allusions to Defendant Cox. See generally Dkt. # 18. As stated, supra, Defendant Cox 4 is not a party to the insurance policy at issue, and the Court is skeptical that he should be 5 listed in this case. Rather than hypothesize GEICO’s intent, the Court wants to ensure 6 that Defendant Cox is a proper party. See Couturier v. Am. Invsco Corp., No. 2:12-cv- 7 01104-APG-NJK, 2013 WL 4499008, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2013) (“[a] judge is the 8 impartial umpire of legal battles, not a party’s attorney. He is neither required to hunt 9 down arguments the parties keep camouflaged, nor required to address perfunctory and 10 undeveloped arguments.”). 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS GEICO to (1) show cause as to why Defendant 12 Cox is a named party and (2) clarify the Defendants against whom GEICO is moving for 13 summary judgment. GEICO shall address these issues no later than seven (7) days from 14 the date of this ORDER and in no more than five (5) pages. The Court will afford 15 Defendants five (5) days to respond to GEICO’s pleading upon its submission, should 16 they wish to do so. 17

18 Dated this 10th day of October, 2024. 19

20 A

21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 23

25 26