BENTON – Atain Specialty Insurance doesn’t have to pay a $6,699,568.52 judgment that tree trimmer James Hodge owes to housemate Bailey Watson for driving his wood chipper over her, Senior U. S. District Judge Phil Gilbert ruled on Feb. 13.
Gilbert wrote that Hodge’s policy covered the chipper while in operation but that, “based on the undisputed facts the wood chipper was not in operation during the accident.”
He found it wasn’t being actively used, running, or otherwise turned on.
He found it was passively hauled by Hodge’s dump truck.
Litigation against other defendants over responsibility for the judgment continues in Madison County circuit court, where defendants accuse Hodge and Watson of collusion.
Hodge drove the chipper over Watson on Aug. 22, 2020, on the property where they lived.
She allegedly suffered major injuries, and he took her to a hospital.
Police decided he didn’t intend to harm her.
In 2021, Watson’s counsel Lanny Darr of Alton notified Atain that Watson sought coverage under Hodge’s policy.
Atain declined coverage and sued for declaratory judgment in district court.
Watson sued Hodge and his Riverbend Tree Service in Madison County.
Hodge didn’t defend the suit.
Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth granted default judgment and Watson filed a garnishment action against Atain and Riverbend Tree Service in Madison County for the entire amount.
Atain removed the petition to district court and Gilbert consolidated it with the declaratory judgment action.
Gilbert flipped Hodge from defendant to plaintiff in the garnishment action.
Last year Watson filed suit in Madison County to recover the judgment from Burns and Wilcox Insurance, Equity insurance agency, and Lewis and Clark insurance agency.
Watson claimed they shared liability with Atain as a result of procuring, brokering, and placing insurance for Hodge’s business.
Those defendants intervened in Gilbert’s court to plead that Atain should pay the entire amount.
They offered dictionary definitions of operation as “the fact or condition of functioning or being active” and “a doing or performing especially of action.”
Gilbert wrote, “Even with these definitions, it is a stretch to see how passively attached equipment is considered in operation.”
He also rejected Watson’s argument that Hodge purchased a policy to insure the potential liabilities inherent to his tree removal business.
“Watson argues that this court must provide deference to the reasonable expectations of the policy holder,” Gilbert wrote.
“The court agrees, but the court will not hold the expectation of the policy holder trumps clear language of the policy,” he added.
Gilbert found the policy clear and unambiguous and wrote that he couldn’t create ambiguity where there was none.
He granted summary judgment on Atain’s action against Watson and dismissed Watson’s garnishment action.
Burns and Wilcox, Lewis and Clark, and Equity remain as defendants in Ruth’s court.
Burns and Wilcox claim Watson and Hodge colluded in allowing entry of default judgment.
Lewis and Clark and Equity claim there is evidence of collusion, and Equity alleges that Watson and Hodge were in a romantic relationship.