Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02092/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02092-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY 

INSURANCE CO. PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE No. 05-2092 

RUSSELL LAYTON DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 25 day of January, 2007, comes on to be th

considered Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 66)

and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 68) in opposition. The Court, being

well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with

respect thereto:

1. The plaintiff, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

(“Progressive”) brought this action against defendant Russell

Layton, seeking a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it

issued to Layton provided no coverage for any claims made by Layton

arising out of an accident that occurred on or about April 13,

2005.

2. In ruling on Progressive’s motion for summary judgment,

the Court found the following facts to be undisputed:

* Layton is in the business of escorting oversized

vehicles.

* Progressive insured Layton’s escort vehicle ....

* On or about April 13, 2005, Layton was employed to

escort an oversized tractor-trailer. At some point

during the trip, the tractor-trailer got off route

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JLH Document 70 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
While Progressive characterizes the motion as untimely, the Court 1

considers it to be timely filed under Rule 60(b)(1).

2

and, in an attempt to get it back on route, Layton

escorted it beneath an overpass. As the tractortrailer attempted to pass beneath the overpass, the

load it was hauling, a generator and housing,

collided with the overpass and were damaged.

* According to Layton, prior to the accident, the

height pole attached to his vehicle had broken and

he borrowed a measuring pole from another escort

vehicle to measure the height of the overpass.

Layton attributed the accident to a malfunction in

the borrowed height pole.

(Doc. 64 at pgs. 2-3.)

3. The Court granted Progressive summary judgment, finding

that the accident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance

or use of Layton’s escort vehicle. The Court reasoned:

The breaking of the height pole on Layton’s escort

vehicle may have contributed to the chain of events that

led up to the accident. However, Layton’s escort vehicle

was neither the instrumentality that caused the tractortrailer to hit the overpass, nor did the use of his

escort vehicle produce the property damage. Rather, the

accident and resulting property damage were caused by the

mis-measurement of the overpass, which was allegedly

caused by the malfunction of a height pole on another

escort vehicle.

 

(Doc. 64 at pgs. 4-5) (emphasis added).

4. Layton now moves for relief from the summary judgment

order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) , asserting that the Court 1

misunderstood the facts. Specifically, Layton asserts that he “had

inserted the borrowed height pole and installed the pole on [his]

vehicle.” (Doc. 66 ¶ 3) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JLH Document 70 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

5. Whether or not Layton actually installed the borrowed

height pole on his escort vehicle is of no consequence to the

outcome of this case. The critical inquiry in determining whether

an accident arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a

vehicle is whether the vehicle itself or permanent attachments to

the vehicle causally contributed in some way to produce the injury.

See Greene v. Young, 54 P.3d 734, 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Layton attributed the accident to a malfunction in the borrowed

height pole and the borrowed pole was not a permanent attachment to

Layton’s vehicle. Accordingly, the accident cannot be said to have

arisen out of the ownership, maintenance or use of Layton’s escort

vehicle, and the insurance policy at issue therefore provides no

coverage.

6. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Layton’s

Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 66) is without merit and

should be, and hereby is, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JLH Document 70 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>