United Financial Casualty Company v. Kansas E3, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5094 KANSAS E3, LLC; RED LINE CONTRACTORS, LLC; FIDEL RUA; JASON FLYNN; and AMANDA FLYNN DEFENDANTS ORDER Now before the Court are Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34), Statement of Facts (Doc. 35), and Brief in Support (Doc. 36); Separate Defendants Kansas E3, Red Line Contractors, LLC, and Fidel Rua’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 39), Response to Statement of Facts (Doc. 40), and Brief in Support (Doc. 41); and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 44). The Court is aware that on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of any material factual disputes and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586— 87 (1986). The Court must view the facts and any logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Canada v. Union Elec. Co., 135 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (8th Cir. 1997). A review of the parties’ briefing and attached exhibits persuades the Court that summary judgment is inappropriate. There remain genuine, material disputes of fact as to which of two vehicles—one insured and the other uninsured—was involved in an accident. The insurance coverage dispute at the heart of this declaratory judgment action

turns on the identification of the vehicle, which the witnesses dispute. This matter must therefore be tried to a jury. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion a Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED on this a day of April, 2025.

0 . BROOK UNVTED STATES RICT JUDGE