Opinion ID: 2332710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment Was Appropriate On The Ownership And Maintenance Provisions.

Text: After Superior Court Judge Christen ruled there were not sufficient facts alleged to support a claim of negligent entrustment, the Kalenka Estate filed a motion for reconsideration, and the superior court vacated its ruling on the merits of the negligent entrustment claim. Judge Christen explained that she was convinced that the Estate intended to preserve its opportunity to prove its negligent entrustment claim in a separate action. Later, Infinity filed another motion for summary judgment, seeking a ruling on negligent entrustment. The newly assigned judge, Judge Ashman, granted summary judgment for Infinity and gave several reasons why summary judgment was now proper. First, Judge Ashman explained that Judge Christen had reconsidered her decision on [the negligent maintenance and entrustment claims] because [she] determined that neither party had requested a final ruling on their merits. Because Infinity had filed a new motion for summary judgment and affirmatively requested a ruling on the merits of these claims, Judge Ashman determined that a ruling was now appropriate. Second, Judge Ashman reasoned that because the Kalenka Estate could only raise such a claim against Wassili and because the court presiding over the action between the Kalenka Estate and Wassili had already entered a default judgment against Wassili, a ruling by this court now on negligent maintenance and entrustment would have little relevance to the underlying tort case. The Kalenka Estate argues that there were genuine issues of material fact which needed to be resolved in the suit against Wassili. Infinity counters that it filed its Complaint seeking a ruling from the trial court that there was `no uninsured or medical payments coverage under the policy.' According to Infinity, the question whether there is coverage for benefits sought under the terms of the policy is a matter between the parties to the contract. Infinity argues that it therefore is entitled to a ruling on those issues, whether or not the Kalenka Estate would prefer to litigate them in another case. We agree with the Kalenka Estate that an injured party is generally allowed to choose the forum in which to litigate a tort claim. Other courts have denied requests by insurers for declaratory judgments on the ground that litigating those declaratory judgment actions would interfere with an injured party's tort relief. In Cunningham Brothers, Inc. v. Bail, an alleged tortfeasor sought a declaratory judgment that it had not been negligent. [45] The Seventh Circuit held that such a declaratory judgment was inconsistent with the federal declaratory judgment statute, explaining that to compel potential personal injury plaintiffs to litigate their claims at a time and in a forum chosen by the alleged tort-feasor would be a perversion of the Declaratory Judgment Act. [46] The Maryland Court of Appeals has similarly analyzed the interplay between declaratory judgment actions involving insurance coverage and separate suits alleging direct tort liability: [A] declaratory judgment action prior to the underlying tort trial can be both a valuable and appropriate means of resolving questions of policy coverage when the question of policy coverage is independent and separable from the claims asserted in a pending suit by an injured third party. When a question sought to be resolved in the declaratory judgment proceeding would be decided in the pending tort action, however, it is ordinarily inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment prior to resolution of the underlying tort trial.[ [47] ] We agree that an insurer's interest in obtaining a declaratory judgment concerning its coverage should not displace an injured party's access to traditional tort relief. But in this case, there was no reason for Judge Ashman to decline to decide the issues of negligent entrustment and negligent maintenance. Infinity initiated this litigation by filing an action for declaratory judgment on the limited question whether its policy provided coverage. It was the Kalenka Estate that elected to actively litigate the underlying tort issues in the declaratory judgment action. Indeed, in its response to Infinity's declaratory judgment complaint, the Kalenka Estate filed a counterclaim seeking the money it alleged was owed under the policy. In its counterclaim, the Kalenka Estate sought the amount of the coverage limits of the . . . policy. And the Kalenka Estate did not alert Judge Christen to the existence of the separate tort suit against Wassili until it filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge Christen, out of an abundance of caution, reconsidered her earlier decision on these issues to give the Kalenka Estate a chance to preserve them for its direct tort litigation with Wassili. But by the time Judge Ashman made his decision on these issues two things had changed. First, a default judgment had been entered against Wassili on the negligent entrustment claim against him. Second, it became apparent that the Kalenka Estate had not actually raised a negligent maintenance claim in its suit against Wassili. Thus, Judge Ashman's decision to resolve the negligent entrustment and negligent maintenance claims would not affect the Kalenka Estate's suit against Wassili. We therefore conclude that Judge Ashman did not abuse his discretion by granting Infinity's request for declaratory judgment.