Source: http://cabadvantage.com/articles/category/cases-from-bits/c68-volume-10-edition-5/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:41:48+00:00

Document:
ALL BRANDS CIGARETTES & CANDY, INC., Defendant.
NANCY F. ATLAS, United States District Judge.
This insurance coverage case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [Doc. # 9] filed by Plaintiff Great American Insurance Company of New York (“Great American”). Defendant All Brands Cigarettes & Candy, Inc. (“All Brands”) filed a Response [Doc. # 10], Plaintiff filed a Reply [Doc. # 11], and the Court discussed the Motion with counsel during the initial pretrial conference on April 27, 2007. Based on the Court’s review of the full record and the application of governing legal authorities, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion.
The Policy is attached as an exhibit to Great American’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
One of Defendant’s delivery truck drivers was robbed on June 29, 2006, and another delivery truck driver was robbed on August 21, 2006. On each occasion, there was no individual in or on the delivery truck whose “sole duty” was to safeguard the cargo that was stolen.
Defendant filed a claim for each loss, and Great American denied each claim based on the exclusion for theft from a vehicle that was not “attended” as defined in the Policy. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy does not provide coverage for the two robberies. Defendant counterclaimed, asserting “unfair settlement practices,” breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a “failure to comply with prompt payment statute” as required by the Texas Insurance Code.
Plaintiff promptly moved for summary judgment. Defendant responded, arguing that the Motion was premature because the parties had not conducted discovery. In its response, Defendant also addressed the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff filed a reply, the issues have been fully briefed, and the Motion is ripe for decision.
Defendant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has not identified discovery that would be material to the outcome of the Motion.
The material facts in this case are undisputed and the parties agree that Texas law applies. Under Texas law, the meaning of an insurance contract is to be determined under the standards applicable to contracts generally. See Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Swift Energy Co., 206 F.3d 487, 491 (5th Cir.2000); Cicciarella v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 66 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir.1995); Barnett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.1987). A court’s primary concern is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed by the policy language. Cicciarella, 66 F.3d at 768; Ideal Lease Serv., Inc. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 662 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Tex.1983). “When the terms of an insurance policy are unambiguous, a court may not vary those terms.” Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moak, 55 F.3d 1093, 1095 (5th Cir.1995); Royal Indem. Co. v. Marshall, 388 S.W.2d 176, 181 (Tex.1965).
In this case, the unambiguous language of the Policy, specifically the Unattended Vehicle Restricted Theft Coverage Endorsement, provides that the Policy does not cover a loss from theft unless Defendant’s truck was “attended.” To be “attended” under the Policy, there must have been someone in or on the truck whose “sole duty” was to safeguard the truck’s cargo. It is undisputed that, at the time of each theft, there was no individual in or on Defendant’s truck whose “sole duty” was to safeguard the truck’s contents and, therefore, the truck was not “attended.” Because the truck was not “attended,” the losses are not covered by the Policy and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.
Defendant argues that the insurance binder did not contain the Unattended Vehicle Restricted Theft Endorsement. An insurance binder is effective only until the formal insurance policy is issued. See Ranger County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 501 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.1973). Defendant also argues that it was not informed of the Unattended Vehicle Restricted Theft Endorsement and did not know of its existence. Under Texas law, it is not the insurer’s responsibility to explain the Policy to the insured; it is the insured’s responsibility to read the policy. See Mudd v. Selectquote Ins. Serv. of Texas, Inc., 2005 WL 1475364(Tex.App.-San Antonio Jun.22, 2005, no pet.); Ruiz v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.); Amarco Petroleum, Inc. v. Tex. Pac. Indem. Co., 889 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). The Policy does not cover Defendant’s claims.
Defendant asserts counterclaims that Plaintiff engaged in “unfair settlement practices,” breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and failed to comply with the prompt payment requirements of the Texas Insurance Code. Each of these counterclaims hinges on Plaintiff’s denial of Defendant’s claims for insurance coverage. Under Texas law, in order for an insured to establish that an insurer’s denial of a claim violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing, the insured must prove that there was no reasonable basis-and the insurer knew there was no reasonable basis-for denying the claim for benefits under the policy. Aranda v. Ins. Co. of North Amer., 748 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Tex.1988). Texas courts have applied the Aranda standard to alleged breaches of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as to alleged violations of the DTPA and the Texas Insurance Code, and have collectively referred to these “extra contractual” claims as “bad faith” claims. See Thrash v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 992 F.2d 1354, 1356 (5th Cir.1993). Generally, there can be no extra-contractual “bad faith” claim when the insurer promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered under the policy. See Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 177 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.2005); Stoker, 903 S.W.2d at 340; Crocker v. Amer. Nat. Gen. Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 928, 936 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007); Smith v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., — F.3d —-, 2007 WL 504903(5th Cir. Feb.13, 2007).
Defendant’s counterclaims are against the carrier only, and not against the insurance agent who is not a party to this lawsuit. The Court’s ruling is, therefore, limited to the counterclaims against the insurance company.
Because Defendant’s claims are not covered by the Policy, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the extra-contractual claims.
The unambiguous language of the Policy provides that there is no coverage for any theft unless the vehicle is “attended,” which is defined under the Policy to require an individual in or on the vehicle whose “sole duty is to safeguard the Covered Property.” It is undisputed that, at the time of both claimed losses, no such individual was in or on the vehicle. As a result, the two thefts are not covered by the Policy.
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 9] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Complaint and as to Defendant’s Counterclaims. The Court will issue a separate final order.
United States District Court, C.D. Illinois.
JOE BILLY McDADE, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, DHL Express, on February 5, 2007 [Doc. 21]. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED.
On March 25, 2005, Plaintiff, James Walters, arranged for his ex-wife, Vikki Choate, to ship five boxes from Beech Island, South Carolina to Pekin, Illinois using Defendant, DHL Express, as the carrier. According to Walters, the boxes arrived in a damaged condition and various items were either missing or damaged. These items included compact disks, clothing, video disks (DVDs), papers, photographs, and a Carlton Sheets real estate package. Walters seeks compensation for the missing and/or destroyed items.
In this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant only seeks judgment on Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s damages are limited to the actual cash value of the missing/destroyed items, or $100.00 (per box), whichever is less. Defendant states that Plaintiff’s damages are limited as the insurance agreement entered into by the parties limits its damages to the above amounts. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that he purchased additional insurance, in the amount of $2000 per box, prior to shipment.
Summary judgment should be granted where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party has the responsibility of informing the Court as to portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by demonstrating “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325.
Once the movant has met its burden, to survive summary judgment the “nonmovant must show through specific evidence that a triable issue of fact remains on issues on which [s]he bears the burden of proof at trial.” Warsco v. Preferred Tech. Group, 258 F.3d 557, 563 (7th Cir.2001); See also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-24. “The nonmovant may not rest upon mere allegations in the pleadings or upon conclusory statements in affidavits; it must go beyond the pleadings and support its contentions with proper documentary evidence.” Chemsource, Inc. v. Hub Group, Inc., 106 F.3d 1358, 1361 (7th Cir.1997).
This Court must nonetheless “view the record and all inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party].” Holland v. Jefferson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 883 F.2d 1307, 1312 (7th Cir.1989). In doing so, this Court is not “required to draw every conceivable inference from the record-only those inferences that are reasonable.” Bank Leumi Le-Isreal, B.M. v. Lee, 928 F.2d 232, 236 (7th Cir.1991). Therefore, if the record before the court “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,” then no genuine issue of material fact exists and, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. McClendon v. Indiana Sugars, Inc., 108 F.3d 789, 796 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). However, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact; disputed facts must be left for resolution at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
A carrier providing transportation or service … shall issue a receipt or bill of lading for property it receives for transportation under this part. That carrier … [is] liable to the person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading. The liability imposed under this paragraph is for the actual loss or injury to the property caused by [the carrier].
A carrier can, however, limit its liability:A carrier providing transportation or service … may … establish rates for the transportation of property … under which the liability of the carrier for such property is limited to a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the circumstances surrounding the transportation.
This Court already has found that the Carmack Amendment governs Plaintiff’s claims. [Doc. 10, Order Adopting a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss]. The parties do not appear to dispute this conclusion or that Defendant may limit its liability. See Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. U.P.S., Inc., 474 F.3d 379, 384 (7th Cir.2007) (“The Carmack Amendment [ ] applies to ground carriers and not air carriers.”). In order to establish liability, Plaintiff must initially show that the goods were delivered to Defendant in good condition, that they arrived missing or damaged, and the amount of damages. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Yellow Freight Sys. Inc., 325 F.3d 924, 928-929 (7th Cir.2003). Defendant only seeks judgment on the amount of damages.
There are four steps a carrier must take to limit its liability under the Carmack Amendment: (1) maintain a tariff within the prescribed guidelines of the Interstate Commerce Commission; (2) obtain the shipper’s agreement as to his choice of liability; (3) give the shipper a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability; and (4) issue a receipt or bill of lading prior to moving the shipment.
Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., 829 F.2d 1047, 1416 (7th Cir.1987).
Formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission. 49 U.S.C. § 702.
Household goods are defined as “personal effect and property used or to be used in a dwelling….” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(10). A “Household goods motor carrier” is defined as a motor carrier who, in addition to transporting household goods, conducts other activities related to the packing, boxing, loading, and unloading of items. 49 U.S.C. § 13102(12). Noncontiguous domestic trade means transportation service originating or ending in Alaska, Hawaii, or territories or possessions of the United States. 49 U.S.C. § 12102(17).
See Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. 49 U.S.C. § 702. No party has addressed whether the tariff requirement is now a non-issue given changes in the law. See generally Sassy Doll Creations, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 331 F.3d 834 (11th Cir.2003). In any event, the tariff issue is only tangential to the ultimate issue of this case, whether Defendant validly limited its liability.
Absent a higher shipment valuation, carriers’ liability is limited to $100 per package, or actual value, whichever is less, special or consequential damages are not recoverable. See terms and conditions on reverse side of this non-negotiable waybill.
It is undisputed that Choate did not check the “Shipment Value Protection” box and did not indicate any shipment valuation. Thus, Defendant argues, as Choate failed to indicate any additional protection on the waybill, which constitutes the parties’ entire agreement, Plaintiff’s damages are limited by the terms of the waybill.
Plaintiff, however, offers a different scenario. Plaintiff argues that he contracted for the Shipment Value Protection by faxing a document to a DHL representative prior to the pick-up of the boxes for delivery. In particular, Plaintiff states that after Choate had packed the boxes, he called DHL to arrange a pick-up and was told to talk to the DHL carrier when he arrived to pick up the boxes about any insurance. (James Walters Aff. ¶ 12). When the DHL carrier arrived, Plaintiff spoke to him on the telephone regarding insurance on the packages. (Walters Aff. ¶ 13). The carrier told him to call DHL in order to arrange for insurance. (Walters Aff. ¶ 13). Plaintiff called DHL, again, and eventually was told to FAX an authorization letter for the insurance. (Walters Aff. ¶ 17). Plaintiff went to a Staples store and faxed the authorization letter to the attention of Karen Reynolds with a credit card number for “frieght [sic] charges and extra protection, Insurance.” (Walters Aff. ¶ 18; Pl.Ex. D). Plaintiff then “authorized Vikki [Choate] to release my packages to the next DHL delivery person who came to her home.” (Walters Aff. ¶ 19). Thus, Plaintiff states, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a “post-waybill agreement” for the added protection on the boxes.
For purposes of summary judgment, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s version of events.
The Court notes that the parties provided various documents to the Court that include original signatures, addresses, and credit card numbers. Such documents should have been redacted prior to filing pursuant to this Court’s CM/ECF rules. Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel are CAUTIONED to follow Civil Administrative Procedure (II)(I) governing the filing of documents that contain personal data identifiers in the future.
Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that he authorized DHL to “place $2000 worth of insurance on each package through my mother’s credit card.” (Walters Aff. ¶ 18). However, the FAX itself does not mention this dollar amount. (Pl.Ex.D).
The FAX itself purports to be from Laverne Walters, Plaintiff’s mother. The document indicates that Laverne Walters authorized DHL to ship the boxes in question.
Defendant contends that each of the facts outlined above are merely parole evidence and cannot be introduced to expand its liability as provided by the waybills. Plaintiff has chosen to completely ignore this argument. Plaintiff does not address any of the agency issues raised by Defendant. Plaintiff does not offer any argument that Choate only had limited authority to bind Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not address whether the waybill comprised the entire agreement between the parties and that additional evidence is merely parole evidence. Plaintiff has failed to present any case authority that would support his position. Indeed, Plaintiff’s argument consists of one paragraph that does not shed any light on the nuances of this dispute.
There appears to be no dispute that Illinois contract law governs this dispute.
we have recognized that parties can present evidence outside of the contract to show that although the contract appears to be clear to a typical reader of English, anyone who understood the circumstances in which the contract had been intended to apply would know that it does not mean what it seems to mean.
Id. at 568 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This so-called provisional admission rule is followed by various divisions of the Illinois Court of Appeals. See Ahsan v. Eagle, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 1238, 1241 (Ill.App.Ct.1997) (“We join the current trend in Illinois law which allows a court to consider parole evidence provisionally to determine if an agreement that appears to be clear on its face is actually ambiguous.” (emphasis in original)).
An integrated writing is one intended by the parties to be a final and complete expression of the entire agreement, which means it contains such language as imports a complete legal obligation. Importantly, only the subject writing may be considered to determine the integration question.
Id. at 879 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
If the contract represents a complete agreement between the parties, extrinsic evidence cannot be submitted to a trier of fact in order to determine the meaning of an otherwise facially unambiguous contract. See Quake Const. Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 990, 994 (Ill.App.Ct.1990) (“If no ambiguity exists in the writing, the parties’ intent must be derived by the circuit court, as a matter of law, solely from the writing itself.”).
The waybill at issue is such an integrated, unambiguous, contract . It contains all the necessary provisions that would legally bind the parties. Pursuant to the waybill, if Plaintiff wanted to increase the protection on his goods, he should have marked the appropriate box and indicated a proper dollar amount. That Plaintiff may have faxed a document to Defendant that purports to increase the protection on the goods shipped is exactly the type of evidence that was rejected by the Davis Court as such extrinsic material cannot be used to determine whether an agreement is integrated. Thus, Plaintiff is barred by the parol evidence rule from seeking greater protection for his packages than what is provided by the waybill.
Plaintiff appears to argue that the FAX and Plaintiff’s discussions with a DHL representative constituted a second agreement. Plaintiff does not support this argument with any citation to authority, in violation of Local Rule 7.1(D)(1)(c). The Court will not address this undeveloped and unsupported argument.
the declared value box provides the reasonable opportunity to choose a higher level of liability, and the shipper’s expectation that the carrier would be fully liable for any potential loss despite a failure to declare the actual value of the shipment is no more than a unilateral mistake.
Sassy Doll, 331 F.3d at 842.
There is no question of fact in this case that Plaintiff’s agent failed to fill in the front of the waybill and designate an amount of protection on the shipment.
There also is no question of fact that Plaintiff did not use DHL’s “automated system” in seeking added protection. In Defendant’s statement of material fact number 4, Defendant provides a copy of section 8 of the waybill, which is reproduced above. In response, Plaintiff admits to the fact and emphasizes the portion of section 8 that provides for a request via DHL’s “automated system.” However, throughout Plaintiff’s remaining responses to Defendant’s statement of material facts and in his argument section, Plaintiff provides no facts or argument that Plaintiff’s actions constituted use of Dhl’s “automated system.” That is, Plaintiff did not argue or present facts that by calling DHL and faxing over a document, Plaintiff used DHL’s “automated system” to request added protection.
0. Neither party defines “automated system.” However, use of the term “automated” logically implies that the system used would not require interaction with another person. Based on the prevalent use of the internet, the Court assumes that the system referred to is, perhaps in part, DHL’s website which appears to allow a sender to “Prepare a shipment” and “schedule a pick-up” on-line. http://www.dhl-usa.com/home/home.asp (follow “ship” hyperlink).
1. Defendant appears to make, in passing, an argument that Plaintiff cannot prove which items were shipped and therefore cannot prove his damages. The Court assumes that at trial Plaintiff will be able to present competent evidence of items shipped and items missing and/or damaged.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, DHL Express, on February 5, 2007 [Doc. 21] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s damages are limited to the terms of the waybill, actual cash value or $100, whichever is less, for each box shipped.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 702
 § 13102
 § 13102
 § 12102
 § 702
 v. 
 v. 
 v.