Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Wonderland Express, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

March 20, 2015

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
WONDERLAND EXPRESS, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LOUIS GUIROLA, Jr., Chief District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [21] for Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company in this declaratory judgment action. There has been no response filed. After due consideration of the plaintiff's arguments and the relevant law, it is the Court's opinion that Nautilus has shown it is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify defendants Wonderland Express Inc., Horizon Freight System, Inc., or Steven Beasley under the Policy issued by Nautilus to Wonderland. Additionally, the Policy does not provide any coverage for the damages sought by defendants Amanda Hicks and Lacy Lofton, as natural guardian and next friend of C.L., a minor, on behalf of the estate of Stephen Anderson. The Motion for Summary Judgment will therefore be granted.

BACKGROUND

Nautilus issued a Commercial General Liability insurance policy to Wonderland, which is a contract trucking operation. After an accident involving one of Wonderland's trucks, two individuals, Hicks and Lofton, filed lawsuits against Wonderland and its driver for their injuries. Wonderland submitted a claim to Nautilus, and Nautilus now seeks a declaration from the Court that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify any defendant for damages arising from the Accident.

DISCUSSION

1. The Insurance Policy

Nautilus argues that its Policy was specifically designed to insure Wonderland for general commercial risks and exclude auto related risks. "The exclusions [ ] are designed to coordinate or dovetail' with other common and readily available coverages, such as business auto or workers compensation coverage, which should be separately insured and are outside the scope of a CGL policy." (Pl. Mem. 8, ECF No. 22).

The Policy includes the following exclusion for injuries arising out of the use of automobiles:

COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY
2. Exclusions
This insurance does not apply to:
...
g. Aircraft Auto or Watercraft
"Bodily 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.