Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Forsberg

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 6, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Aug 06, 2024 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE 11 COMPANY, a foreign insurer, No. 2:23-CV-0188-SAB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 14 DRAKE FORSBERG, and ESTATE OF FOR RECONSIDERATION 15 DAVID FORSBERG, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Under Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 59(e). ECF No. 52. Plaintiff is represented by Sarah Eversole. Defendant 21 Drake Forsberg is represented by Evan Schneider. Defendant Estate of David 22 Forsberg (“Defendant Estate”) is represented by Marshall Casey, Isaiah Peterson, 23 and Marcus Sweetser. The motion was considered without oral argument. 24 Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its denial of summary judgment as to 25 coverage under the Liberty Guard Auto Policy in the above-captioned case. After 26 reviewing the Motion, the Auto Policy, and caselaw, the Court grants the motion. 27 // 28 // 1 MOTION STANDARD 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides that a party may file to alter or amend a 3 judgment “no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” “Reconsideration is 4 appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 5 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 6 an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. 7 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A court can determine it made 8 a clear error when after reviewing the entire record it is “left with the definite and 9 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. U.S. Gypsum 10 Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Reconsideration is within the sound discretion of 11 the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Nation, 12 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s argument and finds it committed clear error 15 in analyzing the Liberty Guard Auto Policy in its last Order, ECF No. 50. 16 Under the Auto Policy, Definition A.1 defines “you” or “your” as “[t]he 17 ‘named insured’ shown in the Declarations.” Exclusion B of the Auto Policy 18 indicates:

19 B. We do not provide Liability Coverage for the ownership, 20 maintenance or use of: [. . .] 3. Any vehicle, other than “your covered auto,” which is: 21 a. owned by any “family member;” or 22 b. furnished or available for the regular use of any “family member” 23 However, this exclusion (B.3) does not apply to you while you 24 are maintaining or “occupying” any vehicle which is: a. owned by a “family member;” or 25 b. furnished or available for the regular use of a 26 “family member.” 27 Drake Forsberg was not a named insured and did not meet the Policy 28 definition of “you” for purposes of coverage. Exclusion B.3 applies to “you,” 1 which means Plaintiff is not liable to indemnify Drake Forsberg. 2 Ownership of the Ford Ranger truck at issue is immaterial to the question of 3 coverage. The truck was not a listed vehicle under the Auto Policy Declarations, 4 and, since it was purchased on October 8, 2021, it does not qualify as a “newly 5 acquired auto” for coverage under the Policy’s agreement in Part A—B.1 and B.2 6 for a “covered auto.” It was purchased more than 30 days before the November 12, 7 2021 crash. 8 Defendant Estate previously argued Tracy Gibson held title and therefore 9 ownership until October 28, 2021. But Washington law does not recognize title as 10 a sole indicator of ownership. Gingrich v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 57 Wash. App. 11 424, 430–31 (1990). The relevant and material fact at issue is ownership 12 transferred when the truck was purchased on October 8, 2021. 13 Therefore, Drake Forsberg is not covered by the Auto Policy, absolving 14 Plaintiff of any liability to Drake under the Auto Policy. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), ECF No. 52, is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, is 5|| GRANTED in full. 3. The Court declares there is no coverage for Drake Forsberg under the Auto Policy for the accident on November 12, 2021. 8 4. The District Court Clerk shall correct the judgment set forth in ECF No. 51, and enter judgment as follows: 10 a. for Plaintiff on the Personal Liability Policy coverage; 11 b. for Plaintiff on the Auto Policy coverage; 12 C. for Plaintiff as to Defendant Drake Forsberg’s counterclaims o 13 bad faith, violation of the Consumer Protection Act; violation 14 of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act; negligent claims adjusting, 15 and breach of contract. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 17|| this Order, provide copies to counsel, enter judgment, and close the file. 18 DATED this 6th day of August 2024. 19 20 21 22 23 hl Secon Stanley A. Bastian 2 Chief United States District Judge 26 27 28