NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0523n.06

Case No. 14-6475

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DANNY SWAFFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FORESTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge.*

MURPHY, District Judge. Danny Swafford operates Swafford Farms as a sole 

proprietorship and provides logging and timber services. To protect against liability, he 

purchased a “Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy” from Forestry 

Mutual Insurance Company. A provision of the insurance policy required Forestry Mutual to 

defend Swafford in suits for benefits or damages payable under the policy.

On April 3, 2012, Albert Wayne Capshaw was injured at a Swafford job site while 

logging timber. He filed suit against Swafford for tort damages in Tennessee state court. The 

complaint alleged that Capshaw worked as an independent contractor. Forestry Mutual refused to 

 

*

The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, siting by designation. 
No. 14-6475

Danny Swafford v. Forestry Mutual Insurance Company

- 2 -

defend Swafford in connection with the underlying suit and asserted that the complaint did not 

state a claim covered under the policy. In February 2012, Swafford brought a declaratory 

judgment action against Forestry Mutual in Tennessee state court and argued that, despite the 

allegations in the complaint, Capshaw was an employee covered under the insurance policy and 

Forestry Mutual had a duty to defend. Forestry Mutual removed the case to federal court, and 

filed a motion for summary judgment. 

The district court reviewed the underlying complaint and explained that, since Capshaw 

did not seek workers compensation benefits, the sole issue was whether Capshaw’s complaint 

fell within the employer’s liability portion of the policy. The court read the complaint to allege 

Capshaw operated as an independent contractor and found that the insurance policy covered only 

injuries to employees. Comparing the complaint and the policy, the district court determined that 

coverage did not extend to independent contractors, and held that Forestry Mutual had no duty to 

defend. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to Forestry Mutual. 

On appeal, Swafford contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. 

While the appeal was pending, Swafford filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 

201 requesting that this court take judicial notice of the final order of the Tennessee state court in 

the underlying lawsuit. Rule 201 permits judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable 

dispute, including the indisputable actions of other courts. See Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of

Cleveland, 695 F.3d 548, 553 n.2 (6th Cir. 2012). We grant the motion and take judicial notice of 

the order from Warren County, Tennessee, Circuit Court, Case No. 4399. And having reviewed 

the record and the district court’s opinion, we adopt the district court’s opinion and reasoning as 

our own and AFFIRM.