Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-01024/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-01024-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE )

COMPANY, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:05cv1024-MHT

) (WO) 

SUNSHINE CAMPING CENTER, )

INC., etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company has brought

this federal lawsuit against defendants Sunshine Camping

Center, Inc. and Union Planters Bank, N.A. (also known as

Regions Bank, N.A.), seeking a declaration as to whether

it is obligated to defend and pay any judgment against

Sunshine Camping with regard to Union Planters’s statecourt complaint, cross-claim and third-party claim

against Sunshine Camping. Auto-Owners has invoked the

Case 1:05-cv-01024-MHT-VPM Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 4
2

jurisdiction of the court based on diversity of

citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This cause is now before

the court on Auto-Owners’s motion for summary judgment

against Sunshine Camping and Union Planters. 

The undisputed facts appear to be as follows: In

August 2004, Union Planters filed several charges against

Sunshine Camping in the Circuit Court of Dale County

alleging, in essence, that Sunshine Camping obtained

funds from Union Planters through the submission of

false, fraudulent, and forged documents. In November

2004, in another lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Dale

County, filed by Robert M. McAllister against Sunshine

Camping and Union Planters for the same conduct, Union

Planters filed a cross-claim and third-party claim

against Sunshine Camping. Union Planters’s cross-claim

and counter-claim against Sunshine Camping appear to be

subsumed by the allegations in Union Planters’ complaint.

In May 2006, a jury entered judgment in favor of

Union Planters in its lawsuit against Sunshine Camping.

Case 1:05-cv-01024-MHT-VPM Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Auto-Owners filed this federal lawsuit against Sunshine

Camping and Union Planters alleging that its policies of

insurance do not provide liability insurance coverage for

any of the claims, damages actions, or judgments against

Sunshine Camping with respect to Union Planters’s

complaint, cross-claim, and third-party claim against

Sunshine Camping. 

Auto-Owners now seeks summary judgment against

Sunshine Camping and Union Planters pursuant to Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Rule

provides that summary judgment is appropriate where there

is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Neither

Sunshine Camping nor Union Planters have responded to

Auto-Owners’s summary-judgment motion. In light of

Sunshine Camping and Union Planters’ failure to alert

this court of any genuine issues of material fact with

regard to Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment, the

Case 1:05-cv-01024-MHT-VPM Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 4
court will grant summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners

and against Sunshine Camping and Union Planters. 

DONE, this the 8th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01024-MHT-VPM Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 4