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.

21st Century Premier Ins. Co. v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Alaska

February 11, 2014

21ST CENTURY PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
LEXINE Z. SMITH and BENJAMIN D. SMITH as PARENTS AND GUARDIANS OF A.M., A MINOR CHILD, Defendants

For 21st Century Premier Insurance Company, Plaintiff: Gary A. Zipkin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Guess & Rudd P.C., Anchorage, AK; Frank S. Koziol, Jr., Law Office of Frank S. Koziol, Anchorage, AK.

For Lexine Z. Smith, Benjamin D. Smith, Lexine Z. Smith, Parent and Guardian of A.M. Minor Child, Benjamin D. Smith, Parent and Guardian of A.M. Minor Child, Defendants: Zane D. Wilson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.

Benjamin D. Smith, Parent and Guardian of A.M. Minor Child, Lexine Z. Smith, Lexine Z. Smith, Parent and Guardian of A.M. Minor Child, Counter Claimants: Zane D. Wilson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.

For 21st Century Premier Insurance Company, Counter Defendant: Gary A. Zipkin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Guess & Rudd P.C., Anchorage, AK; Frank S. Koziol, Jr., Law Office of Frank S. Koziol, Anchorage, AK.

OPINION

Page 885

Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

RALPH R. BEISTLINE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an uninsured-motorist-coverage case arising from an accident involving a pickup truck and a snowmachine.[1] Before the Court is a declaratory judgment action filed by 21st Century Premier Insurance Company (" 21st Century" ) against its insured, Defendants Lexine Z. Smith and Benjamin D. Smith, as parents and guardians of their minor child A.M., who was a passenger on the snowmachine. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment at Docket Numbers 38 and 48. Because there are no facts in dispute, the Court's resolution of the issues before it depends solely on questions of law.[2] Moreover, because there are competing summary judgment motions requesting declaratory judgments, the Court's conclusions will dispose of the current litigation.

In as much as the parties have submitted memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support of their positions, oral argument is neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant matter.[3]

After careful consideration, and in light of the discussion below, the Court concludes that the snowmachine in this case was an " uninsured motor vehicle" under AS 21.96.020(c) at the time of the accident. Because the snowmachine was an " uninsured motor vehicle," 21st Century's exclusion denying coverage for vehicles operated on " crawler treads" is unenforceable under these facts. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine dispute as to material facts and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of summary ...


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.