The Southern District recently issued an Order granting summary judgment to an insurance carrier because its policy unambiguously excluded coverage for bodily injuries arising out of the use of any vehicle operated by a “volunteer worker.” McKeel v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2015 WL 1333998 (S.D.Ga. March 24, 2015).
In McKeel, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident when Cuong Nguyen improperly turned into the path of her vehicle. Plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time, suffered injuries in the accident and prematurely delivered her baby. Unfortunately, the baby died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. At the time of the accident, Nguyen was a “volunteer worker” of Limelight Bar and Grill, LLC, which was owned by Nguyen’s brother.
Limelight was insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by Auto-Owners that provided bodily injury liability limits in the amount of $1,000,000. Auto-Owners denied Plaintiffs’ demand for the policy limits because the policy excluded bodily injuries that arose out of the use of an automobile.
Plaintiffs filed a personal injury suit in the State Court of Bryan County and obtained a verdict against Nguyen in excess of $3,000,000. Nguyen assigned his interest in any claim he may have against Auto-Owners to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine if “the insurance policy at issue covers the events giving rise to the underlying lawsuits.” Auto-Owners filed a counter-claim for declaratory judgment to determine that it has “no obligation to make payment for any amount relating to the [Plaintiffs’] judgment for damages obtained by them in the Underlying Liability Lawsuit.” Following discovery, Auto-Owners filed summary judgment arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are unambiguously excluded by the policy.
The policy contains an exclusion that expressly excludes “’[b]odily injury’ or ‘property damage’ arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, ‘auto,’ or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.” The Court determined that based on this clear and unequivocal language, the policy does not provide coverage for any bodily injury that is based on the use of a vehicle operated by an insured.
The issue, then, was whether Nguyen was an insured under the Auto-Owners policy. The policy defined insureds to include “‘volunteer workers’ only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business.” It was undisputed that Nguyen was a “volunteer worker” at the time of the accident. The Court concluded that Nguyen was an insured under the terms of the policy.
Because the policy expressly excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the use of any vehicle operated by an insured, the Court granted Auto-Owners summary judgment and found that the policy did not provide coverage for the injuries claimed by Plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit.