TRIALCOURTDECISIONS
028
Grovers v. Allied Insurance and
AMCO Insurance
January 21, 2015
Maricopa County Superior Court
Jeff Collins and Michael Hensley
Michael Hensley and Jeff Collins prevailed on summary
judgment in a declaratory judgment/coverage litigation
involving: (1) a choice of law issue (Minnesota or Arizona), and
(2) an issue regarding “stacking” of Uninsured or Underinsured
motorist coverage (UM/UIM) under Minnesota law (the law the
court found applicable to the case). The net effect of this victory
was to save the carrier over one million dollars in additional
UM/UIM benefits.
In this case, Plaintiffs traveled to Arizona from Minnesota and
were involved in a car/motorcycle collision. Mr. Plaintiff was
driving the motorcycle with Mrs. Plaintiff as his passenger. As
they went through an intersection, a car turned in front of them,
causing the accident. Both Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries
with the combined medical expenses exceeding one million
dollars. The at fault driver had minimum limits insurance.
Plaintiffs’ motorcycle insurer paid $100,000 in UIM coverage
for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs sought to “stack” additional UM/
UIM coverage from policies they had on other cars and
motorhomes onto what they had already received from the
motorcycle insurer. The JSH client insurance companies
contended that, under Minnesota law, they did not owe UM/
UIM coverage on top of what was already covered. Plaintiffs
then sued the carriers who insured their motorhome and
automobiles, seeking $250,000 for Mr. and Mrs. Plaintiff,
under each of the two polices, for a total of $1 million. They
asked the court to declare that Arizona law applied and that
Arizona law allowed them to stack the multiple UM/UIM
coverages under policies insuring a variety of vehicles.
One of the major issues to be decided by the court was the
choice of law. Plaintiffs argued that staying in their motorhome
for multiple months after their arrival made them Arizona
residents, so Arizona law should apply. The JSH lawyers argued
the Plaintiffs were not residents of Arizona and that the choice
of law analysis dictated that Minnesota law should apply in
the “stacking” analysis. The court agreed with JSH’s client’s
position based upon the relevant facts in the controlling
Arizona case of Beckler v. State Farm.
Additionally, the JSH lawyers argued that applying Minnesota
law, which limited stacking of UM/UIM coverage for multiple
vehicles, meant their clients did not owe the $1 million in
additional UM/UIM coverage. The court denied Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted JSH’s client’s
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, finding the Plaintiffs
were not entitled to “stack” the UM/UIM coverage from
their other vehicles on top of the UIM coverage they already
recovered under the motorcycle policy. This victory saved JSH’s
clients one million dollars in additional UM/UIM payments.
Verduzco v. American Valet
December 9, 2014
Maricopa County Superior Court
Michael Ludwig, and Jennifer Anderson
Michael Ludwig and Jennifer Anderson recently obtained the
complete dismissal of their clients from a catastrophic injury
and wrongful death case. The six plaintiffs— two adults and
four children—were involved in a two-car accident that killed
one passenger, caused traumatic brain injury to another, and
significantly injured the remaining passengers. The plaintiffs’
vehicle was struck by a car driven by a man who was allegedly
under the influence of drugs and who, hours earlier, had stolen
the car from a valet service by claiming to be the owner.
The plaintiffs sued the valet company, the hotel at which
it operated, and the driver of the stolen car. Ludwig and
Anderson filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the
hotel and valet company, arguing that neither owed a duty of
care to the plaintiffs because no special relationship existed
between them. The plaintiffs responded by clai