United States District Court, D. Alaska
SANGKI CHONG, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF YONG SUK CHONG, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Counterclaimant,
v.
SANGKI CHONG, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF YONG SUK CHONG, Counterdefendant,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AT DOCKET 18 AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AT 23
RALPH
R. BEISTLINE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
estate of Yong Suk Chong ("the Estate") has filed
the present action against National Continental Insurance
Company (“NCIC”) seeking compensation from an
automobile insurance policy's uninsured motorist
coverage. NCIC filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief
arguing that there was no uninsured motorist coverage
applicable under the terms of the policy of insurance.
NCIC
has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 18. The
Estate opposes at Docket 22 and Defendant replies at Docket
27. Additionally, the Estate has filed a Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment With Respect to the Counter-Claim for
Declaratory Relief at Docket 23. NCIC opposes at Docket 28
with the Estate replying at Docket 34.
II.
BACKGROUND
Yong
Suk Chong and Yun Yi were domestic partners living in Bethel,
Alaska, where Mr. Yi owned and operated a taxi business with
Ms. Chong employed as a cab driver. NCIC issued business
automobile insurance policy number 71244561 (“the
Policy”) to Mr. Yi and Ms. Chong was listed as an
authorized driver on the Policy. The Policy was in effect at
all times relevant to this matter.
In the
early morning hours of January 31, 2012, Kyle Motgin
(“Motgin”) was in Bethel and called for a taxi to
pick him up.[1] Yong Suk Chong responded to the call,
driving a 2005 Lexus ("the Taxicab") which was
insured under the Policy. Motgin got into the front passenger
seat and stated he wanted to be taken to Napakiak. Because
the only way to travel by automobile to Napakiak from Bethel
was on the frozen Kuskokwim River, which required a permit
she did not possess, Ms. Chong informed Motgin that she could
not take him to Napakiak. Motgin was angered by Ms.
Chong’s refusal and an argument ensued. At some point
Ms. Chong tried to push Motgin out of the Taxicab, and the
situation became violent. Motgin used a knife in his
possession to cut Ms. Chong, then pulled Ms. Chong across the
passenger seat, and pushed her out of the door of the
Taxicab. After Ms. Chong was outside the vehicle, Motgin
exited the Taxicab and put Ms. Chong in the backseat. When
this occurred, Motgin believes Ms. Chong was still alive.
With Ms. Chong in the backseat of the vehicle, Motgin began
driving the Taxicab to Napakiak. While he was traveling to
Napakiak, Motgin stopped the vehicle to throw away an empty
whiskey bottle and it is Motgin’s belief that Ms. Chong
was still alive.
On
February 1, 2012, the Taxicab was located in Napakiak,
Alaska, and Ms. Chong’s dead body was found in the
backseat of the vehicle. Motgin was later arrested and pled
guilty to murder in the second degree for killing Ms. Chong.
He was sentenced to 80 years in prison with 35 years
suspended.
The
Estate has brought the present suit seeking uninsured
motorist coverage under the Policy covering Ms. Chong's
Taxicab for damages the Estate suffered as a result of
Motgin's actions. The Policy provides that NCIC will pay
compensatory damages an insured is entitled to recover from
the driver of an uninsured motor vehicle for injury or death
when the liability for these damages results from the use of
the vehicle.[2]
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary
judgment avoids unnecessary trials when there is no dispute
as to the facts in the matter before the court.[3] The evidence of
the nonmoving party is to be believed and all reasonable
inferences are drawn in his favor.[4] Summary judgment is
appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[5] The opposing
party must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a
triable issue of fact exists.[6] However, once the moving party
has met the initial responsibility, the opposing party cannot
then meet its burden to show genuine disputed facts simply by
offering conclusory statements unsupported by factual
data.[7]
The
Court recognizes that Alaska substantive law governs this
diversity action. When interpreting an insurance policy,
Alaska law instructs courts to look to the language of the
disputed provision, other provisions in the policy, extrinsic
evidence, and case law interpreting similar
provisions.[8] Insurance policies are construed in a
manner that honors a lay insured's reasonable
expectations.[9] Any ambiguity should be construed in favor
of the insured and against the insurer.[10] Also, grants
of coverage should be viewed broadly, while exclusions should
be viewed narrowly.[11] Yet where a reasonable lay
interpretation of the policy would not encompass coverage
under the circumstances, there is no ambiguity and therefore
no coverage.[12]
IV.
DISCUSSION
As an
initial matter, the Court finds there to be two separate acts
at issue here. First, Motgin's assault on Ms. Chong with
his knife ("the Assault") and second, his
subsequent placement and transportation of her wounded body
in back of the Taxicab ("the Transportation"). The
Court finds that Motgin was not operating a vehicle during
the Assault, nor did Ms. Chong suffer any further injuries at
the hands of Motgin during the Transportation.[13]
A.
Taxicab Was Not An "Uninsured Motor Vehicle" Under
the Policy
NCIC
asserts that the Estate is not entitled to uninsured motorist
benefits because language in the Policy provide that
“an uninsured motor vehicle” means a vehicle for
which no liability policy applies at the time of the
accident. Because the Taxicab was insured for liability
claims, NCIC argues it could not meet the definition of an
“uninsured motor vehicle.”
The
Estate argues that because Motgin's use of the Taxicab
was unauthorized, liability coverage would not apply.
Accordingly, the Taxicab should therefore be considered an
"uninsured motor vehicle." Moreover, the Estate
argues that the only restriction on uninsured motorist
coverage is that the party seeking coverage must be “an
insured” who is injured by another who is not insured.
However,
in order to provide coverage, the uninsured party must also
have been a motorist. As the Estate points out, AS
28.20.445 is entitled “Uninsured and underinsured
motorists coverage, ” not uninsured and underinsured
vehicle coverage.[14] Because Ms. Chong remained in the
driver's seat of the Taxicab during the entirety of the
Assault, the Court cannot find that Motgin was a motorist at
the time of the Assault. He was a passenger attacking a
motorist. Motgin only took unauthorized control of the
vehicle and became a motorist after Ms. Chong had already
been stabbed and forcibly removed from the vehicle. There is
no indication that Motgin was a motorist or operator of any
vehicle during the Assault. He only became such during the
Transportation. Even if the Taxicab was considered uninsured
once Motgin took control and became a motorist, which NCIC
disputes, the Taxicab remained an insured vehicle driven by
Ms. Chong at ...