Date: 09-12-2012
Case Style: Andrea Chavez v. HBC Motorsports, LLC
Case Number: CJ-2011-72
Judge: Phillip C. Corley
Court: District Court, Logan County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeremy D. Looper, Jason B.Reynolds and Billy D. Griffin
Defendant's Attorney: Chad C. Taylor
Description: 1. That on or about June 26, 2009, Irvin Fernando Zubiate Chavez, the deceased, was an invitee on the premises of Cooperland Raceway when he drowned while attending an event held at the track and sponsored by the Defendants, and each of them.
2. That Cooperland Raceway is located in Coyle, Logan County, Oklahoma owned by Defendants HBC Motorsports, LLC and Cooperland USA, LLC and that the event on June 26, 2009 was sponsored by the Defendants, and each of them.
3. The drowning was a result of the Defendants, and each of their, failure to warn or properly maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for its guests and/or invitees.
4. At all relevant times, Defendants’ employees, agents, and/or servants were acting within the scope or course of their employment for the Defendants, and each of them, and therefore the Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for the negligent acts and/or omissions of their employees, agents, and/or servants in failing to warn of a known danger and/or to properly maintain the area.
5. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, frvin Fernando Zubiate Chavez sustained permanent, irreversible severe bodily injuries, conscious pain and suffering which resulted in his death on June 26, 2009.
6. Plaintiff, Andrea Chavez, adopts and repleads the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-5, above, and further alleges that she is the Next of Kin of Irvin Fernando Zubiate Chavez, Deceased, and that as a result of Defendants conduct, the Estate has been damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, due to the conscious pain and suffering of the decedent, and the medical and burial expenses of the decedent.
8. Plaintiff; Andrea Chavez, adopts and repleads the allegations stated in paragraphs 1-5 above, and further alleges that she is the surviving mother of frvin Fernando Zubiate Chavez, and that as a result of Defendants conduct, they have been injured in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, due to the loss of services, earnings, contributions, companionship and grief suffered as a result of her son’s death.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs individually pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, in amounts in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, interest and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.
THE RIDER NETWORK’S COMBINED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
INTRODUCTION
Defendant, The Rider Network (“Rider”), moves the Court to enter summary judgment against Plaintiff because no material facts are in dispute and Rider is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, Rider was not a host or sponsor of the event where the incident occurred and has never availed itself to jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Plaintiff can demonstrate no set of facts to warrant equitable relief or denial of Rider’s summary judgment.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Plaintiff has filed a premises strict-liability claim for the drowning death of a minor at a racing event in Coylc, Oklahoma. The event was promoted and organized by Cooperland USA (“Cooperland”), who is not affiliated in any way with Rider. Defendant
Rider is a racing information hub and insurance brokerage in Sheboygan, Wisconsin that informs event promoters where to obtain insurance for their events.
Here, Rider merely told Cooperland how and where the type of insurance sought by Cooperland could he obtained and submitted an application for insurance to another entity, K&K Insurance - Rider did not (and does not) have any affiliation to the subject event or the race organizers. Defendant Rider cannot be held to have reasonably foreseen being haled into court in the State of Oklahoma to defend an action that arose out of a drowning where the premises were not under Rider’s custody or control at any time. Accordingly, all pertinent issues with respect to jurisdiction indicate that Rider does not have sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to be subject to jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO WHICH NO GENUINE CONTROVERSY EXISTS
I. Coopcrland USA held a race event in Coyle, Oklahoma on June 26, 2009. See Exhibits A and B.
2. Darlene Schultz, called the Rider Network to inquire about obtaining insurance for the race event. Ms. Schultz submitted an application for insurance on June 2, 2009. See Exhibit A.
3. Cooperland USA was the race event host or sponsor. HBC Motorsports LLC owned and operated the premises, Cooperland Raceway, where the race occurred. See Exhibit A.
4. The Rider Network is an insurance brokerage and racing information hub in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The Rider Network is not a race host or sponsor. See Exhibits A, B, and C.
5. The Rider Network had no responsibilities to organize, supervise, or manage the races or track area, including the pond, where the racing occurred. See Exhibit A.
6. The Rider Network submitted the insurance application to K&K Insurance, who ultimately insured the race event. Rider received an insurance premium from Cooperland USA which was partly paid to K&K Insurance. See Exhibits A, B, and C.
7. At the time of the acceptance of the insurance application, K&K Insurance knew, understood, and acknowledged that The Rider Network was not the race event’s host or sponsor. See Exhibit B.
8. The reason that Rider was a named insured on the insurance certificate was because they are the brokerage that receives notice of any early termination of the insurance policy. This does not mean they are the race host or sponsor. See Exhibit B.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 13 for District Courts, all inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Carmichael v. Belier, 1996 OK 48, 914 P.2d 1051. Where facts concerning any issue raised by the pleadings and materials are such that reasonable people, in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment, might reach different conclusions upon consideration of the same, summary judgment must be denied. Bird v. Coleman, 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123. On the other hand, summary judgment is proper when the record reveals uncontroverted material facts failing to support any legitimate inference in favor of the nonmoving party. NC. Corff Partnership, Ltd. v. OXY USA, 1996 OK. CIV. APP. 92, 929 P.2d 288. A party may not rely on the allegations of his pleadings or bald assertions that facts exist to defeat summary judgment. Zargosa v. Oneok, Inc., 700 P. 2d 662 (Okia. App. 1984). A party also cannot merely rely upon conjecture or suppositions, and assert “that facts exist or might exist, [because such] is not sufficient to create a substantial controversy when the moving party for summary judgment has introduced evidence showing the existence of facts which would preclude recovery by thc party against whom the motion was made.” Mengel v. Rosen, 735 P. 2d 560,563 (OkIa. 1987).
II. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT RIDER WAS A RACE HOST OR SPONSOR.
Plaintiff mistakes the application for insurance and certificate for Cooperland USA as evidence that Rider was a host or sponsor of the race event. However, the undisputed facts prove that Rider was not a host or sponsor. Both Cooperland USA and K&K Insurance have affirmed that Rider was not a host or sponsor of the races. HBC Motorsports LLC - Cooperland USA owned and operate the premises where the race occurred. Plaintiff has no evidentiary support for claiming Rider was a race host or sponsor, or that their actions meet any of the elements required for a negligence claim.
For Plaintiffs claim of negligence, the required elements of a !k and breach of that duty are missing. Summary judgments are a proper procedure to dispose of a deficient negligence claim. Perry v. Green, 1970 Ok 70, 468 P. 2d 483. Here, Cooperland USA was a purchaser of insurance, Rider was the brokerage intermediary, and K&K Insurance was the insurer. All three parties to this transaction have sworn that Rider was NOT a host or sponsor of the subject race event. The reason that Rider was listed as an insured on the certificate of insurance was because they are the brokerage that receives notice of any carly termination of the insurance policy. Since Rider had no duties relating to the race event it cannot be liable to Plaintiff. Where there is no duty, there can be no negligence. Bray v. St. John Health Sys, Inc., 2008 OK 51, 187 P.3d 721, 723. Absent a substantial controversy, summary judgment is proper even in a negligence action, Smith v. American Flyers, Inc., 540 P. 2d 1212, 1214 (OkIa. App. 1975). Rider never had any cmployees come to Oklahoma and perform or fail to perform any duties. Specifically, the Contributing Associate Partner Agreement states the purpose of the agreement:
The Purpose of this Agreement is to enable the Company (Ride ri to assist the Associate /Cooperl and USA} in obtaining event or annual insurance and individual products and services for the Associate and the Associates clientele for off-highway vehicle competitions special practices and/or events per the risk management guidelines set forth by the Company. (Emphasis added.)
The nature of the relationship between Rider and Cooperland USA is clearly to assist in obtaining insurance, not sponsorship of the subject race. By Plaintiffs logic, every applicant for insurance is seeking sponsorship/hosting of their race from Rider. ‘Ihere is further support that Rider was not to be considered a sponsor in the Contributing Associate Partner Agreement: i.e.
Whereas, the Associate desires to obtain products, services and/or liability insurance for off-highway vehicle annual policies and/or events; whereas the Company desires to assist the Associate in securing such insurance, products and services; whereas it is the intent of the parties hereto that the extent of the their relationship shall be united as set forth hereafter and that they shall not be deemed to be partners, co-ventures or joint ventures of each other, and shall have no rights, obligations, liabilities or authority to the other, except as set forth herein. (Emphasis added.)
There are additional terms in the agreement clearly affirming that Rider is not a sponsor or affiliated with the actual promoter, Cooperland USA, such as: Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to make the parties hereto partners, co-ventures or joint ventures of each other, and they shall have no rights, obligations, liabilities or authority as to the other, except as set forth herein. (Emphasis added.)
Conversely, Rider never performed or failed to perform any action beyond the borders of Wisconsin that could possibly support a claim of negligence in Oklahoma with respect to this race. In order to defeat a summary judgment motion on a negligence claim, the opponent must establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendants: (1) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) breached that duty; or (3) breach of that duty proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries. See Copeland v. Tela Corp., 19990K 81, ¶ 5,996 P.2d 931, 933. The comerstone of a negligence action is the existence of a duty. Bray v. St. John Health Sys., Inc., 2008 OK 51. I 6, 187 P.3d 721, 723. The issue of whether a duty existed is a question of law. Id. Therefore, based on the undisputed facts that show that Rider was a host or sponsor and thereby did not owe any duty to Plaintiff, Rider may not be held liable to Plaintiff and summary judgment is warranted.
III. RIDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION IN OKLAHOMA
Rider has not done anything to avail itself to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma. Rider adopts and reasserts herein the entirety of its argument and authority from its previously filed Motion to Dismiss and Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment under these facts is proper.
II. Summation
1. Plaintiff asserts that The Rider Network was an event host or sponsor and should be liable for an incident at the race premises.
2. The actual race event host and sponsor, Cooperland USA, has confirmed that Rider was NOT an event host or sponsor.
3. The insurer for the race event, K&K Insurance, has confirmed that Rider was NOT an event host or sponsor.
4. Rider’s only activity in this case consisted of brokering the application for insurance for Cooperland USA solely within the borders of Wisconsin.
5. Reasonable people in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment cannot disagree on these facts.
6. There are no facts to support any claim of liability on Rider.
7. No facts show that Rider has availed itself to jurisdiction in Oklahoma.
V. Conclusion
When reviewing Plaintiff’s claims in a light most favorable, the uncontroverted facts and authority cited herein support summary judgment in favor of Defendant Rider.
Plaintiff has no evidence that Rider’s has any sufficient, legal means to be subject to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma. Plaintiff does not have any evidence to support the claim that Rider was a host or sponsor of the race event. Plaintiff has no evidence to support any claim of a duty or breach of any duty. 1’he Rider Network respectfully requests the Court to enter an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and enter summary judgment against Plaintiff.
Outcome: On the 15th day of June, 2012, Defendant, The Rider Network’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing before the undersigned District Court Judge. The Court granted Rider Network’s Motion for Summary Judgment on June 15, 2012, and then memorialized by Order entered July 20, 2012. Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court finds expressly that 1) there is no just reason for delay and 2) that final judgment should be entered in favor of The Rider Network pursuant to OkIa. Stat. tit. 12 § 994.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment is granted in favor of The Rider Network and against Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
