Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-4_24-cv-00002/USCOURTS-akd-4_24-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

RICHARD BERNIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:24-cv-00002-SLG

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Before the Court at Docket 27 is Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff Bernier responded with a limited opposition to motion 

at Docket 31 to which Defendant State Farm replied at Docket 32.

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in November 

2020. Plaintiff Bernier was struck by another vehicle driver by an underinsured 

motorist. After Mr. Bernier received a policy limits settlement from the other driver’s 

insurance, he sought coverage under his underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage

with State Farm. The Complaint sets out four counts: Count I alleges that Mr. 

Bernier is entitled to recover the UIM coverage policy limits from State Farm. 

Count II alleges negligent and reckless claims Handling. Count III alleges a 

violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. And Count IV seeks punitive 

Case 4:24-cv-00002-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 4:24-cv-00002-SLG, Bernier v. State Farm

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment of Count I on Plaintiff’s Complaint

Page 2 of 2

damages.1

State Farm’s motion seeks summary judgment solely as to Count 1 of the 

Complaint. State Farm asserts that summary judgment on this count is warranted 

because “State Farm has paid all available sums under the UIM coverage provided 

by the policy it issued to plaintiff.”2

Plaintiff’s limited opposition acknowledges that State Farm has “belatedly 

paid the amount owed to Plaintiff under his UIM claim,” but maintains that the “postlawsuit payment does not impact” the other three counts in the Complaint.

3 In reply, 

State Farms reiterates that it is only seeking the dismissal of Count I, and maintains

that rather than filing a limited opposition, Plaintiff “should have [filed] a nonopposition to the requested relief.”4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that State Farm’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 27 is GRANTED. 

DATED this 27th day of November 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Docket 1-1 at 3-12. 

2 Docket 27 at 1-2/ 

3 Docket 31 at 1.

4 Docket 31 at 2.

Case 4:24-cv-00002-SLG Document 33 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2