Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00138/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00138-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brannon Jonah Clayton
Counter Claimant
Gerardo Alann Felix Garay
Defendant
Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation
Counter Defendant
Christina Montecino
Counter Claimant
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company
Counter Defendant
Peerless Insurance Company
Counter Defendant
Anita Rojas
Counter Claimant
Gabriel Rojas
Counter Claimant
Cynthia Ann Rojas
Counter Claimant
Mary Garcia Rojas
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GERARDO ALANN FELIX GARAY; 

MARY GARCIA ROJAS; CYNTHIA 

ANN ROJAS; CHRISTINA 

MONTECINO; GABRIEL ROJAS; 

ANITA ROJAS, individually and as a 

Guardian ad Litem for BRANNON 

JONAH CLAYTON; and DOES 1 to 

50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT

ORDER PERMITTING PEERLESS 

INSURANCE COMPANY AND 

GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE 

CORPORATION TO SUBMIT 

BRIEFING RE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

MARY GARCIA ROJAS; CYNTHIA

ANN ROJAS; CHRISTINA

MONTECINO; GABRIEL ROJAS;

and ANITA ROJAS,

Counterclaimants.

v.

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS

INSURANCE COMPANY;

PEERLESS INSURANCE

COMPANY; GOLDEN EAGLE

INSURANCE CORPORATION

Counterdefendants.

__________________________________/

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 8
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

I. Introduction

Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) brought suit against 

Defendants Gerardo Alann Felix Garay, Mary Garcia Rojas, Cynthia Ann Rojas, Christina 

Montecino, Gabriel Rojas, Anita Rojas, and Does 1 to 50 (collectively “Defendants”) seeking a 

declaration that Nationwide had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants under a commercial 

automobile insurance policy and umbrella policy, issued to HFS Enterprises (“HFS”), regarding 

a October 23, 2011 automobile accident, involving a 2001 Dodge flatbed truck (“the Vehicle”). 

Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing against Nationwide and breach of contract and to recovery judgment against Nationwide, 

Peerless Insurance Company (“Peerless”) and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation (“Golden 

Eagle”). Defendants move for partial summary judgment, specifically seeking that the court 

determine that the Vehicle was a covered vehicle under the Nationwide Auto Policy. For the 

following reasons, the Court will permit Peerless and Golden Eagle to submit briefing before the 

Court adjudicates this matter.

II. Background

A. The Truck

HFS is a natural gas and diesel irrigation-engine leasing and selling business, owned by 

Jon and Julie Schuetz for approximately 25 years. Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JSUF”) 

at ¶ 22. In 2003, HFS purchased the 2001 Dodge flatbed truck (“the Truck”) that is the subject of 

this action. JSUF at ¶ 25. The Truck was registered with the DMV and the Certificate of Title 

listed HFS as registered owner. JSUF at ¶¶ 25, 27. On March 26, 2010, HFS and JSA Company 

(“JSA”) signed a Bill of Sale, listing JSA as buyer of the Truck. JSUF at ¶ 31. Possession of the 

Truck was also transferred to JSA on March 26, 2010. JSUF at ¶ 34. On the same day, HFS 

submitted a notice of release of liability for the Truck, listing JSA as the buyer. See Doc. 67-4 at 

9-10. The certificate of title to the Truck was provided to JSA at some point during March of 

2010. JSUF at ¶ 36. However, transfer of title from HFS to JSA was rejected by the Department 

of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) for failure to submit proof of insurance. Defendants’ Statement of 

Facts, Doc. 64-1 (“DSF”) at ¶ 19; Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts, Doc. 

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 8
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

67-7 (“Plaintiff’s Response”) at ¶ 19. Although the application for transfer of title to JSA was 

rejected, it appears that the registered address listed for the Truck was changed from HFS’s 

address at 30134 W. Lerdo Highway in Shafter, to JSA’s address 10457 Van Horn Road in 

Bakersfield. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 35; Doc. 64-7 at 12-17.

Within several weeks of HFS having transferred possession of the Truck to JSA, 

possession of the Truck was returned to HFS. DSF at ¶ 20; Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 20.1 HFS

kept the Truck at its lot near a high-traffic section of the Lerdo Highway in Shafter, California. 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts, Doc 68-1 (“Defendants’ Response”) at ¶ 

50. The truck was listed for sale at the HFS facility for over a year after it was returned. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶53.

In May of 2011, HFS approached Copart, Inc. (“Copart”) regarding Copart reselling the 

Truck. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 24; Defendants’ Response at ¶ 54. HFS provided the certificate 

of title, listing HFS as the registered owner, to Copart to facilitate Copart selling the Truck. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶ 57; Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 24. Ultimately, Copart was unable to sell 

the truck; the truck and certificate of title were returned to HFS. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 60; 

Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 26. After the Truck was returned to HFS by Copart, HFS placed the 

truck back on display in a continued attempt to sell it. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 60; Plaintiff’s 

Response at ¶ 26. 

In October of 2011, Vicente Felix Acosta (“Vicente Felix”) of Vicente Trucking offered 

to purchase the Truck for $7,500.00. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 77; Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 28. 

JSA approved the sale price for the Truck and an HFS employee signed a document entitled “bill 

of sale” on behalf of HFS. Doc. 67-1 at 38. Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 78, 80. Possession of the 

Truck was transferred to Vicente Trucking on October 16, 2011. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 86.

HFS did not deliver the Truck’s certificate of title to Vicente Trucking. Defendants’ Response at 

 

1 A dispute exists as to when the physical certificate of title to the Truck was returned by JSA to HFS. Defendant’s 

Response at ¶¶ 49, 55. Accordingly to Defendants, JSA returned the certificate of title to HFS along with possession 

of the vehicle. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 20. Plaintiff contends that the certificate of title was not returned until HFS 

sought to market the vehicle through Copart, Inc., approximately a year after the Truck was returned by JSA to HFS. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 54-55. The evidence cited by Defendants supports Nationwide’s version of the events; 

JSA brought “the pink slip back to [HFS], after the fact, when [HFS] w[as] ... trying to sell the vehicle on their 

behalf, and we took it to Copart.” Julie Schuetz Decl. at 58:1-4; See Jonathan Schuetz Decl. at 23:15-24.

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 8
4

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

¶ 81. After the purchase, Jonathan Schuetz of HFS delivered the $7,500.00 purchase amount to 

Stanley Antongiovanni of JSA. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 82.

Mr. Felix did not submit any paperwork to the DMV prior to October 23, 2011. 

Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 33. On October 23, 2011, the DMV records showed that HFS was the 

registered owner of the Truck. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 34. A dispute exists as to when HFS 

submitted the notice of release of liability as to the Vicente Trucking sale to the DMV. 

According to Nationwide, notice was mailed before the accident, on October 17, 2011. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 116, 179. The mailed notice was never recorded by the DMV. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶ 179. Defendants contend that notice was not provided until HFS 

submitted an internet notice of transfer and release of liability on November 16, 2011. Plaintiff’s 

Response at ¶¶ 36; Defendants’ Response at ¶ 116, 179.

B. The Accident

After Vicente Trucking took possession of the Truck, it was brought to Vicente Felix’s 

home in Wasco then to the home of Mr. Felix’s brother-in-law, Luis Garay, in Bakersfield. 

Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 87-88. At Mr. Garay’s home, a trailer hitch and electric braking 

system were installed on the truck to facilitate pulling a “gooseneck” trailer. Defendant’s 

Response at ¶¶ 88-89. On October 23, 2011, Gerardo Garay, Vicente Felix’s nephew, was 

driving the Truck with an attached trailer to Mr. Felix’s home in Wasco when he was involved in 

an accident with a 2002 Honda Accord. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 32; First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) at ¶ 22. The Honda Accord contained: driver Mary Rojas, her husband Ruben Rojas, 

and her grandson Brannon Clayton. Third Amended Counterclaim (“TACC”) at ¶25. Ruben 

Rojas was fatally injured; Mary Rojas and Brannon Clayton were seriously injured. TACC at ¶ 

25. 

C. The Policies

i. The Nationwide & HFS Auto and Umbrella Policies

Nationwide issued a Commercial Auto Policy (“the Nationwide Auto Policy”), policy 

number CU 119496A, and a Commercial Umbrella Policy (“the Nationwide Umbrella Policy”) 

to HFS Enterprises, effective May 25, 2011 to May 25, 2012. JSUF at ¶¶ 1-2. The Nationwide 

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Auto Policy has a $1,000,000.00 liability limit per accident and the Nationwide Umbrella Policy 

has a $1,000,000.00 per occurrence limit. JSUF at ¶¶ 6, 13.

Under the Nationwide Auto Policy, Nationwide is required to “pay all sums an ‘insured’ 

legally must pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this 

insurance applies, caused by an ‘accident’ and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use 

of a covered ‘auto.’” JSUF at ¶ 5. Nationwide also has the duty to defend the insured in any suit 

seeking those damages. JSUF at ¶ 5. The Nationwide Auto Policy provides liability coverage for 

“any ‘Auto.’” JSUF at ¶ 3. An “Auto” for purposes of the Nationwide Auto Policy is “[a] land 

motor vehicle, ‘trailer’ or semitrailer designed for travel on public roads.” An “insured” is “any 

person or organization” listed in the “Who Is An Insured” provision of the Nationwide Auto 

Policy. JSUF at ¶ 9. That provision lists the following as “insureds”: “(a) [HFS] for any covered 

auto; [¶] (b) Anyone else while using with your permission a covered ‘auto’ you own, hire or 

borrow[,] except ... (1) [t]he owner or anyone else from whom you hire or borrow a covered 

‘auto....’” JSUF at ¶ 10.

The Nationwide policy did not require HFS create an exhaustive list autos for a schedule 

of covered autos prior to the coverage period. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 140. Instead, 

Nationwide charged an estimated premium at the outset, and then calculated a composite rate at 

the end of the coverage period based on the average number of autos that HFS owned during the 

policy period. Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 140-141. Although the schedule of autos was not 

exhaustive, the Truck was not listed on that schedule at the outset of the policy period or added 

at the close of the policy period. Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 143, 147. HFS did not pay any 

premium for coverage of the Truck. See Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 144-145.

Similar to the Nationwide Auto Policy, the Nationwide Umbrella Policy requires 

nationwide to “pay on behalf of the insured the ‘ultimate net loss’ in excess of the ‘retained 

limit’ because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies....” JSUF 

at ¶ 12. That policy acts as an excess policy with coverage for damage and injuries – for 

purposes of this action – coextensive with the Nationwide Auto Policy. See JSUF at ¶¶ 19-21.

ii. The Peerless, JSA, & Ten Star Auto Policy

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Peerless issued a commercial auto policy, identified as policy no. BA 8561129, to JSA 

for the policy period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011 (“Peerless Auto Policy”). 

Defendants’ Response at ¶ 42. On or about April 6, 2010, Peerless issued a “Policy Change 

Endorsement” adding the Truck to the Peerless policy, effective March 30, 2010. Defendants’ 

Response at ¶ 43; Doc. 67-4 at 56. Peerless renewed the Peerless Auto Policy for the policy 

period of January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 64. That policy 

continued to list the Truck on the schedule of covered autos. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 65; Doc 

67-4 at 183.2The Peerless Auto Policy had a $1,000,000.00 per accident liability limit for 

“covered autos.” Defendants’ Response at ¶ 72; Doc. 67-4 at 176. 

Under the Peerless Auto Policy, Peerless must pay “all sums an ‘insured’ legally must 

pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which th[e] insurance applies, 

caused by an ‘accident’ and resulting from ... use of a covered auto.” Doc. 67-4 at 282. An 

insured includes “[a]nyone ... using with [the insurance purchaser’s permission] a covered ‘auto’ 

you own, hire, or borrow....” Doc. 67-4 at 282.

iii. The Golden Eagle, JSA, & Ten Star Excess Policy

Golden Eagle issued Ten Star and JSA an excess liability policy, identified as policy no. 

CU 8834878, for the policy period of February 15, 2011 to February 15, 2012 (“GE Excess 

Policy”). Defendants’ Response at ¶ 74. The GE Excess Policy lists the Peerless Auto Policy on 

its schedule of underlying insurance. Defendants’ Response at ¶ 76. The GE Excess policy would 

cover JSA and Ten Star’s liability from an automobile accident that exceeds the $1,000,000.00 

Peerless Auto policy limit, up to the GE Excess Policy $5,000,000.00 per occurrence limit. See 

Defendants’ Response at ¶ 75.

D. The Underlying Action

On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed by the Mary Rojas, Cynthia Ann Rojas, 

Christina Montecino, Gabriel Rojas, Anita Rojas, and Brannon Jonah Clayton against Gerardo 

 

2 That policy was cancelled in February of 2012 and replaced by a policy on behalf of Ten Star Farming, Inc. (“Ten 

Star”), a corporate entity tied to JSA and the Antongiovanni family that had taken over some of JSA’s farming 

operations. Defendants’ Response at ¶¶ 67-69. That policy – for purposes of this action – was identical. See Doc. 67-

4 at 263, 269, 277, 282. 

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Garay and HFS based on the automobile accident (“the Underlying Action”). TACC at ¶ 27. 

Nationwide defended HFS in the Underlying Action until the plaintiffs in that action dismissed 

their claims against HFS on September 23, 2013. FAC at ¶ 27. Prior to dismissal of HFS, 

Plaintiffs in the Underlying Action demanded $1 million under the Nationwide Auto Policy and 

$1 million under the Nationwide Umbrella Policy. FAC at ¶ 28. Nationwide rejected both 

demands. The plaintiffs in the underlying action took the matter to trial against Gerardo Garay. 

FAC at ¶ 31. On January 31, 2014, the jury in the underlying action returned a verdict against 

Garay in the amount of $2,798,655.71. 

IV. Discussion

In this action, Defendants seek a determination that Nationwide, Peerless, and Golden 

Eagle covered the Truck at the time of the accident and that any or all of them are responsible for 

paying the judgment returned in the underlying action. For purposes of the motion presently 

before the Court, Defendants seek only partial summary judgment against Nationwide.

According to the Nationwide Auto Policy and the Peerless Auto Policy, the respective 

insurers must pay all sums that an insured must pay as damages because of bodily injury or 

property damage, caused by an accident, and resulting from use of a covered auto. Doc. 46-6 at 

26; Doc. 67-4 at 282. There is no dispute that the Truck was involved in an accident that caused 

bodily injury and property damage. Plaintiff’s Response at ¶ 32. There is also no dispute that the 

Truck, for purposes of the Nationwide Auto Policy, was a covered auto because the policy noted 

that “any auto” is a covered auto. Doc. 64-6 at 13. Although Peerless has not briefed the issue, a 

preliminary review of its policy reveals that the Truck was listed on the schedule of covered 

autos and would appear to be a covered auto. The only question remaining is whether Mr. Garay 

was an insured within the meaning of either the Nationwide Auto Policy or the Peerless Auto 

Policy on October 23, 2011.

Defendants contend that Gerardo Garay is an insured under the omnibus clause of the 

Nationwide Auto Policy; i.e., that on October 23, 2011 (1) HFS owned or borrowed the Truck, 

and (2) Gerardo Garay used the Truck with the permission of HFS. See Doc. 64-6 at 26. 

Nationwide contends, among other things, that HFS was no longer the owner of the vehicle – for 

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

purposes of the omnibus clause – after it complied with California Vehicle Code §§ 5600, 5602, 

and 5900, in releasing liability as to the Truck after the bona fide sale to JSA. 

The Court has fully read and reviewed Defendants’ and Nationwide’s briefings. A 

determination of this matter on the merits would likely impact Peerless’ and Golden Eagle’s 

interests. In fairness to Peerless and Golden Eagle the Court will not adjudicate the matter until 

both are given the opportunity to defend their interests. The Court will permit Peerless and 

Golden Eagle3to submit briefing regarding whether Gerardo Garay was an insured under the 

omnibus clause of the Peerless Auto Policy, specifically addressing their positions on the 

ownership of the Truck on October 23, 2011.4If Peerless and/or Golden Eagle elect to do so, 

such briefing must be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. If Peerless 

and Golden Eagle submit such briefing, Defendants and Nationwide will each be permitted to 

file a response within seven (7) days of the filing of the Peerless and Golden Eagle brief (or the 

later of the filings if Peerless and Golden Eagle submit separate briefs).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

3 Because the interests of Peerless and Golden Eagle appear to be in line here, and because they are both owned by 

Liberty Mutual Group, the Court anticipates that Peerless and Golden Eagles will submit a joint brief.

4 The Court notes that Peerless and Golden Eagle raised additional affirmative defenses beyond its affirmative 

defense that is presently implicated – that the judgment in the underlying action is not against a Peerless insured. 

Peerless and Golden Eagle need not brief any issue not identified by the Court. Only addressing the items addressed 

by the Court will not be read as a waiver of additional affirmative defenses.

Case 1:14-cv-00138-AWI-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/13/16 Page 8 of 8