Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08200/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal - Breach of Contract - Insurance

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victoria Nez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

American Family Mutual Insurance 

Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-08200-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance 

Company (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16). For the following 

reasons, the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff Victoria Nez’s adult sister, Jovita Baldwin, was 

fatally injured while crossing Camelback Road. The deceased was hit by a vehicle driven 

by non-party Ledrius Franklin. Plaintiff is now a legal guardian to the deceased’s thirteenyear-old son and personal representative of the deceased’s estate.

Plaintiff maintains an uninsured motorist policy with Defendant. The policy 

provides uninsured motorist coverage for all family members that are in the same 

household as Plaintiff. Upon the death of her sister, Plaintiff filed a claim for the uninsured 

motorist coverage. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide evidence that 

the deceased was Plaintiff’s relative and a member of Plaintiff’s household. Plaintiff claims 

Case 3:19-cv-08200-GMS Document 25 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to have provided sufficient evidence. As a result, Plaintiff brought this action against 

Defendant alleging breach of contract. Defendant now moves for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually 

unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary 

judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Only disputes 

over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit will preclude the entry of summary 

judgment, and the disputed evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986).

“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of 

informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of [the 

record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” 

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Parties opposing summary judgment are required to “cit[e] to 

particular parts of materials in the record” establishing a genuine dispute or “show[ ] that 

the materials cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(1). A district court has no independent duty “to scour the record in search of a 

genuine issue of triable fact[.]” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 

II. Analysis

This dispute arose because it is unclear in what capacity Plaintiff is bringing this 

action.1 The Arizona statute governing wrongful death actions provides: 

An action for wrongful death shall be brought by and in the name of the 

surviving husband or wife, child, parent or guardian, or personal 

representative of the deceased person for and on behalf of the surviving 

husband or wife, children or parents, or if none of these survive, on behalf of 

the decedent’s estate.

 

1 Because Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s characterization of this action as a 

wrongful death action, the Court will treat it as such.

Case 3:19-cv-08200-GMS Document 25 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A.R.S. § 12-612 (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Plaintiff may not bring a wrongful 

death action in her individual capacity or on behalf of the estate. It is similarly undisputed 

that Plaintiff may bring a wrongful death action in her capacity as personal representative 

of the estate on behalf of the decedent’s surviving son. 

Defendant moved for summary judgment because it understood Plaintiff to be 

improperly bringing a wrongful death action either in her individual capacity or on behalf 

of the estate. Plaintiff asserts in her Response, for the first time, that she is bringing this

action on behalf of the decedent’s son. Because Plaintiff may bring a wrongful death action 

on behalf of a statutory beneficiary, summary judgment for Defendant on the grounds that 

Plaintiff is an improper plaintiff is not appropriate. However, the caption in this action must 

be amended to reflect Plaintiff’s representative capacity.

CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant American Family Mutual 

Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to amend the caption 

in this action to “Victoria Nez, as personal representative of the Estate of Jovita Baldwin

on behalf of the statutory beneficiary of Jovita Baldwin.”

Dated this 31st day of December, 2019.

Case 3:19-cv-08200-GMS Document 25 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3