United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
CARLOS M. BALDRIDGE, Plaintiff,
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
J. Schwab United States District Judge
the Court are Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on a
discrete issue in this insurance coverage dispute. See doc.
nos. 26 and 28. The issue to be determined by this Court at
this juncture of the proceedings is whether underinsured
motorist coverage is available to Plaintiff for stacking
purposes on one of his four personal vehicles which Defendant
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment may be granted if, drawing all inferences in favor
of the non-moving party, “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); see also Melrose, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh,
613 F.3d 380, 387 (3d Cir. 2010).
is “material” if proof of its existence or
non-existence might affect the outcome of the suit under
applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Lamont v. New Jersey,
637 F.3d 177, 181 (3d Cir. 2011). Disputes must be both: (1)
material, meaning concerning facts that will affect the
outcome of the issue under substantive law, and (2) genuine,
meaning there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed
factual dispute “to require a jury or judge to resolve
the parties' differing versions of the truth at
trial.” In re Lemington Home for Aged, 659
F.3d 282, 290 (3d Cir. 2011).
moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of
supporting its assertion that fact(s) cannot be genuinely
disputed by citing to particular parts of materials in the
record - i.e., depositions, documents, affidavits,
stipulations, or other materials - or by showing that: (1)
the materials cited by the non-moving party do not establish
the presence of a genuine dispute, or (2) that the non-moving
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support its
fact(s). Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). The moving party may
discharge its burden by “pointing out to the district
court” the “absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case” when the nonmoving party
bears the ultimate burden of proof for the claim in question.
Conoshenti v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co, 364
F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2004), quoting Singletary v.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 266 F.3d 186, 192 n.
2 (3d Cir. 2001), quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must support its assertion that fact(s) are
genuinely disputed by citing to particular parts of materials
in the record, or by showing that: (1) the materials cited by
the moving party do not establish the absence of a genuine
dispute, or (2) the moving party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support its fact(s). Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). When
determining whether there are any genuine issues of material
fact, all inferences should be drawn in favor of the
non-moving party. Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v.
Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006).
reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not
make credibility determinations, and summary judgment is
“inappropriate when a case will turn on credibility
determinations.” El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transp. Authority, 479 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2007), citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
instant case, the parties have filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. It is well established in this Circuit that
the filing of contradictory motions for summary judgment
“does not constitute an agreement that if one is
rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the
losing party waives judicial consideration and determination
whether genuine issues of material fact exist.”
Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, Pa., 527 F.3d 299,
310 (3d Cir. 2008), quoting Rains v. Cascade Indus.,
Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 1968).
the Court writes primarily for the Parties, this section will
be truncated so that only the facts relevant to the
adjudication of the narrow issue presented shall be set
was injured in a motor vehicle accident on June 10, 2014,
when his vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle. See
Complaint at doc. no. 1-2, ¶ 4-7. Plaintiff settled the
underlying accident for the limits of the tortfeasor's
insurance policy with Defendant's consent.
has averred that the injuries he sustained as a result of the
underlying motor vehicle accident have rendered him unable to
work as a professional truck driver, have caused him to
expend money for medical treatment and care, and will