Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company et al v. Morse et al, No. 3:2021cv00284 - Document 21 (E.D. Tenn. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its motion, Allstate's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 18] is well-taken and GRANTED. A separate judgment shall enter. Signed by District Judge Clifton L Corker on 02/18/2022. (AMP)

Download PDF
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company et al v. Morse et al Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE DIVISION ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE CO., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DAVID L. MORSE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:21-CV-00284-DCLC-DCP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company’s and Allstate Indemnity Company’s (collectively, “Allstate”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 18]. Defendants David and Leann Morse have responded, stating that they do not oppose Allstate’s motion [Doc. 20]. This matter is now ripe for resolution. On August 6, 2021, Allstate filed its Complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment against the Morses under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 [Doc. 1, pgs. 1-16]. Allstate explained that, in April 2020, the Morses sold a home to William and Charlotte Larsen [Doc. 1, pgs. 1-2]. In July 2020, the Larsens filed suit against the Morses, seeking a total of $2,400,000 in punitive and compensatory damages related to the sale [Doc. 1, pgs. 1-2]. The Larsen’s alleged that the Morses failed to disclose “grading, basement and foundation drainage issues” before the sale [Doc. 1, pgs. 1-2]. The Larsens further alleged that the Morses did not disclose that they cleared common property of the neighborhood to provide a view to a golf course from the home, which rendered the clearing a temporary feature of the home [Doc. 1, pg. 2]. Allstate insures the Morses and is currently defending against the Larsen lawsuit on behalf of the Morses under a reservation of rights in the Morses’ insurance policies [Doc. 1, pg. 2]. Case 3:21-cv-00284-DCLC-DCP Document 21 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 212 Dockets.Justia.com Allstate filed the present suit to obtain a judicial determination of its coverage obligations to the Morses in regard to the Larsens’ suit [Doc. 1, pg. 2]. Specifically, the parties agree that this suit involves a question of law to determine whether the Larsen suit presents any claims for damages that would be covered by the Morses’ homeowner and personal umbrella policies [Doc. 13, pg. 1]. Allstate now moves for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 18]. Allstate argues that: (1) the Morses’ alleged misrepresentations did not cause physical injury or destruction of tangible property to trigger its coverage obligations; (2) the damages sought by the Larsens are not damages covered by the Morses’ policies; (3) the Larsen suit does not allege an “occurrence” within the meaning of the Morses’ policies that would trigger its coverage obligations; (4) the Larsens’ claims fall within an exclusion of coverage within the Morses’ policies; and (5) the Larsens’ claim for punitive damages are excluded under the Morses’ policies [Doc. 19, pgs. 1-20]. The Morses’ respond that they do not oppose Allstate’s motion [Doc. 20]. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its motion, Allstate’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 18] is well-taken and GRANTED. A separate judgment shall enter. SO ORDERED: s/ Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge 2 Case 3:21-cv-00284-DCLC-DCP Document 21 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 213

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.