Myers, Kevin v. State Farm Insurance Company, 842 F.2d 705, 3rd Cir. (1988)

842 F.
2d 705
MYERS, Kevin, Appellant,

v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY.
No. 87-1055.
United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.
Argued July 7, 1987.
Assigned Jan. 12, 1988.
Decided March 24, 1988.
Francis X. Nolan (argued), Himes, Sanders & Nolan, P.C., Philadelphia,

Pa., for appellant.
James R. Ronca (argued), Schmidt & Ronca, P.C., Harrisburg, Pa., for
amicus curiae Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Ass'n (on behalf of appellant).
Earl T. Britt (argued), Mary Gay Scanlon, Duane, Morris & Heckscher,
Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
James C. Haggerty (argued), Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, Philadelphia,
Pa., for amicus curiae Pennsylvania Defense Institute (on behalf of
appellee).
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and BARRY,
District Judge.*
OPINION OF THE COURT
A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns the legal status under Pennsylvania law of an insurance
policy's limitations on underinsured motorist coverage. The district court, after
denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss a counterclaim for declaratory relief,
entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant
insurance company. We will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
2
Appellant Kevin Myers was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated

by Michael Joniec when that vehicle was involved in a single car collision on
July 5, 1985. As a result, Myers sustained severe injuries. Prior to the collision,
Joniec had been issued an automobile insurance policy by appellee State Farm
Insurance Company ("State Farm"). This policy provided liability and
underinsurance coverage, each in the amount of $15,000 for the claims of any
one person arising out of any accident and $30,000 for injuries sustained by
two or more individuals in any one accident. As a passenger, Myers was an
"insured" under the terms of the policy. He was also an insured under a policy
issued by Metropolitan Insurance Company, which contained first party
medical coverage and underinsured motor vehicle coverage.
State Farm paid the full $15,000 in liability coverage to Myers, 1 but it refused
to pay his claim for underinsurance benefits, arguing that such a claim was
precluded by the terms of the policy. Thereafter, Myers commenced an action
in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on July 9,
1986 by filing a petition for the appointment of arbitrators. State Farm
responded by petitioning to remove Myers's action to the district court. This
petition, which was based on diversity of citizenship between Myers and State
Farm, was granted. Thereafter, Myers filed a motion to remand his action to
state court. The district court denied this motion.
On October 8, 1986, State Farm filed an answer to Myers's petition for the
appointment of arbitrators and a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment
that State Farm was not obligated under the policy to pay Myers's claim for
underinsurance benefits. Myers moved to dismiss the counterclaim on October
16, 1986. He alleged that State Farm had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted because the insurance policy provided for arbitration
rather than judicial resolution of Myers's claims for benefits under the policy.
Although Myers had not answered the counterclaim, State Farm filed a motion
for summary judgment on October 31, 1986, in compliance with the district
court's directive that all motions for summary judgment be filed by that date.
On December 31, 1986, the district court denied Myers's motion to dismiss the
counterclaim and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Myers
appeals from the district court's order. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982).
II. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
We begin by addressing Myers's claim that there is no diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(c) (1982).2 As
the district court properly determined, this lawsuit is not a direct action within
the meaning of section 1332(c). Myers, as an injured third party, brings this suit
based on State Farm's failure to settle within the policy limits and not, as
contemplated by section 1332(c), as a result of State Farm's status as "payor of
a judgment based on the negligence of one of its insureds." Velez v. Crown Life
Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 471, 473 (1st Cir.1979);3 accord Fortson v. St. Paul Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 751 F.2d 1157, 1159 (11th Cir.1985) ("unless the cause of
action against the insurance company is of such a nature that the liability
sought to be imposed could be imposed against the insured, the action is not a
direct action"); Beckham v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 691 F.2d 898, 901-02 (9th
Cir.1982). State Farm is incorporated and has its principal place of business in
the state of Illinois. It therefore is deemed a citizen of that state for purposes of
determining diversity. Since Myers is a citizen of Pennsylvania, federal subject
matter jurisdiction exists over this action.
III. ARBITRABILITY
7
Myers also argues that the district court misconstrued the insurance contract
when it granted State Farm's summary judgment motion rather than directing
the parties to submit this matter to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
provision of the insurance policy. 4 State Farm claims in response that the plain
language of this clause limits its applicability to disagreements concerning fault
and amount, and that it does not mandate arbitration of disputes over coverage.
State Farm's position is correct. It is well-settled law in Pennsylvania that,
9
when
a party to an agreement seeks to enjoin the other from proceeding to
arbitration, judicial inquiry is limited to the question of (1) whether an agreement to
arbitrate was entered into and (2) whether the dispute involved comes within the
ambit of the arbitration provision.
10
Rocca v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 358 Pa.Super. 67, 70, 516 A.2d 772,
773 (1986), appeal denied, --- Pa. ---, 535 A.2d 83 (1987) (table). In Safeco Ins.
Co. of Am. v. Wetherill, 622 F.2d 685 (3d Cir.1980), this Court considered
whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would compel an insurer to arbitrate
under the arbitration clause of an uninsured motorist provision, where the
automobile involved in the accident was insured, but in an amount insufficient
to cover the claimant's damages. In deciding this question, we noted that
[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that[,] although the parties to an
11
arbitration agreement must submit a dispute within the scope of that agreement to an
arbitration panel, "[t]he issue of whether [a] dispute is one that is covered by the
terms of the arbitration agreement is one for the court to determine."5
12
Id. at 691 (quoting Women's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
v. Savage, 440 Pa. 34, 36, 269 A.2d 888, 890 (1970)). In this case, the district
court properly recognized that this dispute required a legal determination that
preceded any question of arbitrability: whether Joniec's motor vehicle
constituted an "underinsured vehicle." Immediate arbitration thus was not
mandated under the State Farm policy.
IV. PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE LAW

13
In granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm, the district court

determined that, under Pennsylvania law, a guest passenger who is an insured
under the terms of a motor vehicle insurance policy applicable to the host
vehicle and who sustains injuries in a single car collision may not recover the
policy's underinsurance benefits when the passenger has already received the
limits of the liability coverage under that same policy. Myers contends that this
is an improper construction of Pennsylvania law.
14
At the time the district court rendered its decision, no Pennsylvania appellate
court had addressed this precise legal question. After we heard argument in this
case, however, the Pennsylvania Superior Court directly resolved this issue in
the same way that the district court had. See Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut.
Ins. Co., --- Pa.Super. ---, 535 A.2d 1145 (1988) (en banc ). It is this Court's
obligation to review the claims presented to the district court and to apply the
governing law of Pennsylvania. See generally Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville
Corp., 759 F.2d 271, 273-74 (3d Cir.1985) ("Although lower state court
decisions are not controlling on an issue on which the highest court of the state
has not spoken, federal courts must attribute significant weight to these
decisions in the absence of any indication that the highest state court would rule
otherwise."); Adams v. Cuyler, 592 F.2d 720, 725 n. 5 (3d Cir.1979) ("Federal
courts ... may consider the pronouncements of state intermediate appellate
courts as an indication of how the state's highest court would rule."), aff'd, 449
U.S. 433, 101 S.Ct. 703, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981). In addition, this Court must
consider Wolgemuth in light of the rules governing appellate review of a grant
or denial of a motion for summary judgment. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permit a district court to grant summary judgment where "there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "On review the appellate
court is required to apply the same test the district court should have utilized
initially." Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976),
cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). When a
district court is asked to construe contractual clauses that are clear and
unambiguous, summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Landtect Corp. v.
State Mut. Life Assurance Co., 605 F.2d 75, 79-80 (3d Cir.1979). In this case,
where there are no issues of material fact6 and the parties agree that the policy
provisions regarding underinsured motor vehicle coverage are unambiguous, it
was proper for the district court to decide the coverage question on a summary
judgment motion. We therefore turn to the district court's legal analysis.
15
Myers concedes that the district court properly concluded that the terms of the
State Farm policy preclude his recovery of underinsurance benefits.7 The State
Farm policy defines an "underinsured motor vehicle" as
a16land motor vehicle ... the ownership, maintenance or use of which is insured or
bonded for bodily injury liability at the time of the accident; and ... whose limits of
liability for bodily injury liability ... are less than the amount of the insured's
damages; or ... have been reduced by payments to persons other than the insured to
less than the amount of the insured's damages.
17
Appendix at A-66 (original emphases). The policy also provides that an

underinsured motor vehicle "does not include a land motor vehicle ... insured
under the liability coverage of this policy...." Id. Since Joniec's vehicle was
insured under the liability coverage of the State Farm policy, it was not an
underinsured motor vehicle that could create for Myers a legal entitlement to
underinsured benefits. Myers argues, however, that the exclusionary language
in the State Farm insurance policy violates public policy because it is more
restrictive in scope than is the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Secs. 1701-36 (Purdon 1984).
18
Wolgemuth concluded that "[t]his argument reflects a misapprehension of the

nature of underinsured motorist coverage." --- Pa.Super. at ---, 535 A.2d at
1148. Under the statute, all motor vehicle liability insurance policies issued in
Pennsylvania must provide underinsured motorist coverage.8 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.
Sec. 1731(a) (Purdon 1984). In Wolgemuth, the Superior Court noted that
19 legislature, in establishing $15,000/$30,000 as the minimum permissible

[t]he
liability coverage, unquestionably realized that in many instances an accident victim
would be insufficiently compensated by the tortfeasor even though the tortfeasor was
insured. But the legislature, with the passage of the Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law, did ensure that every insured individual who is injured by a
negligent, underinsured motorist, will have recourse to at least $15,000 of
underinsured motorist benefits either (1) pursuant to the policy of insurance

applicable to the vehicle in which the individual was a passenger (if the vehicle was
not at fault), or (2) pursuant to a policy of insurance under which the injured
claimant is an insured person.
20
--- Pa.Super. at ---, 535 A.2d at 1148 (footnote omitted). The court further
explained that "[t]he purpose of underinsured motorist coverage is to protect
the insured ... from the risk that a negligent driver of another vehicle will cause
injury to the insured ... and will have inadequate liability coverage to
compensate for the injuries caused by his negligence." Wolgemuth, --Pa.Super. at ---, 535 A.2d at 1149 (emphases added). Thus, the statute
contemplates recovery by a guest passenger up to the limits of the liability
coverage applicable to the negligent vehicle. Above that amount, the passenger
must recover underinsurance benefits pursuant to another policy under which
that passenger was covered. Wolgemuth, --- Pa.Super. at ---, 535 A.2d at 1149.
21
Guided by the reasoning of the unanimous en banc Superior Court opinion in

Wolgemuth, which we predict the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will follow, we
conclude that the exclusion does not improperly limit the scope of the
underinsurance coverage mandated by Pennsylvania law. Rather, the exclusion
in the State Farm policy achieves the purposes of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law by requiring Myers, once he had recovered up to
the limits on the negligent vehicle's liability coverage, to obtain any
underinsurance benefits pursuant to some other policy that insured him. "To
permit appellant to recover underinsured motorist benefits from appellee ...
would be to convert essentially first party underinsured motorist coverage into
third party liability coverage." Wolgemuth, --- Pa.Super. at ---, 535 A.2d at
1150.
V. CONCLUSION
22
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.
Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District Judge for the District
of New Jersey, sitting by designation
In exchange for payment of this liability claim, Myers executed a release

discharging Joniec from any claims arising from the accident. State Farm was
also part of this exchange. It agreed not to raise the release as a defense to
Myers's claims against it for either underinsured motor vehicle benefits or first
party medical benefits
This statute provides that,

[f]or the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title, a corporation
shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of
the State where it has its principal place of business: Provided further, That in
any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance,
whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not
joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State
of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer
has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business.
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(c) (1982) (original emphases).
In Velez, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that a legislative
report pertaining to the enactment of section 1332(c) indicates
that Congress enacted this amendment specifically to eliminate from diversity
jurisdiction tort claims in which both parties are local residents, but, which
under a state direct action statute, are brought against a foreign insurance
company without joining the local insured as a defendant. [White v. United
States Fidelity & Guaranty, 356 F.2d 746,] 747 [ (1st Cir.1966) ].... "The report
then makes clear that the words 'direct action' were used [in section 1332(c) ] to
refer to statutes such as those in Louisiana and Wisconsin which allow a party
injured by the negligence of an insured to pursue his right of action against the
insurer alone." Id. at 747-48.
Velez, 599 F.2d at 473.
The arbitration clause addressed the issue of

Deciding Fault and Amount[.]
Two questions must be decided by agreement between the insured and us:
Is the insured legally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of
the ... underinsured motor vehicle; and
If so, in what amount?

If there is no agreement, these questions shall be decided by arbitration at the
request of the insured or us. The Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act, as
amended from time to time, shall apply.
Appendix ("App.") at A-66 (original emphases).

5
In Wetherill, we concluded that the automobile involved in the collision was

not an "uninsured vehicle" within the meaning of the policy and, therefore, that
there was no basis to compel arbitration. 622 F.2d at 691
We reject Myers's argument that summary judgment was inappropriate because

the actual monetary value of his claim is undetermined. The amount of
damages he may have suffered is not a fact material to the issue of coverage. It
thus cannot defeat entry of summary judgment. Moreover, his failure to file an
answer to State Farm's counterclaim within 20 days from the filing of the claim
does not preclude summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)
The State Farm policy provides underinsured motorist coverage as follows:

We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect
from the owner or driver of ... an underinsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury
must be caused by accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of
... an underinsured motor vehicle.
App. at A-65 (original emphases). The policy defines an insured, inter alia, as
"any other person while occupying ... your car...." Id. at A-66 (original
emphases).
The Act defines the term underinsured motor vehicle as a "motor vehicle for
which the limits of available liability insurance and self-insurance are
insufficient to pay losses and damages." 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1702
(Purdon 1984)

Myers, Kevin v. State Farm Insurance Company, 842 F.2d 705, 3rd Cir. (1988)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myers, Kevin v. State Farm Insurance Company, 842 F.2d 705, 3rd Cir. (1988)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myers, Kevin v. State Farm Insurance Company, 842 F.2d 705, 3rd Cir. (1988)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

842 F.

MYERS, Kevin, Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals,

Francis X. Nolan (argued), Himes, Sanders & Nolan, P.C., Philadelphia,

Appellant Kevin Myers was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated

II. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

We begin by addressing Myers's claim that there is no diversity of citizenship

State Farm's position is correct. It is well-settled law in Pennsylvania that,

IV. PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE LAW

In granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm, the district court

Appendix at A-66 (original emphases). The policy also provides that an

Wolgemuth concluded that "[t]his argument reflects a misapprehension of the

19 legislature, in establishing $15,000/$30,000 as the minimum permissible

underinsured motorist benefits either (1) pursuant to the policy of insurance

Guided by the reasoning of the unanimous en banc Superior Court opinion in

In exchange for payment of this liability claim, Myers executed a release

This statute provides that,

The arbitration clause addressed the issue of

If so, in what amount?

Appendix ("App.") at A-66 (original emphases).

In Wetherill, we concluded that the automobile involved in the collision was

We reject Myers's argument that summary judgment was inappropriate because

The State Farm policy provides underinsured motorist coverage as follows:

You might also like