Engram v. Uaic

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

WAYNE RANDAL ENGRAM, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0052
FILED 1-10-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2018-015101
The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Wayne Randal Engram, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant

Resnick & Louis, P.C., Scottsdale
By Scott Humble
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
 ENGRAM v. UAIC
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff Wayne Randal Engram appeals from a final
judgment entered after the superior court’s grant of United Automobile
Insurance Company’s (“UAIC”) motion for summary judgment. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2018, Engram filed a complaint alleging that a
driver insured by UAIC collided with his vehicle. He sued UAIC and the
driver for the driver’s negligence. The driver was never served, and the
superior court eventually dismissed him from the case.

¶3 UAIC moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed
Engram no duty as the driver’s insurer. The superior court granted the
motion and entered judgment pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure
54(c).

¶4 We have jurisdiction over Engram’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-
movant. Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 211 Ariz. 427, 432, ¶ 13 (App. 2005).

¶6 An appellant has an obligation to cite to the record on appeal,
see ARCAP 13(a)(7), and Engram has not done so. An appellant must also
provide any transcripts necessary to support his arguments on appeal. Blair
v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (quoting Baker v. Baker, 183
Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995)); see also ARCAP 11(b)(1). Although Engram filed
incomplete transcripts of a status conference and the oral argument on his

2
 ENGRAM v. UAIC
Decision of the Court

summary judgment motion, to the extent these transcripts are incomplete,
we assume any missing portions would support the superior court’s
judgment. See Blair, 226 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 9.

¶7 Engram argues that genuine issues of material fact exist, and
the court therefore erred in granting summary judgment. See In re 1996
Nissan Sentra, 201 Ariz. 114, 119, ¶ 16 (App. 2001); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). But
he points to no such issues in either his opening or reply brief on appeal.
He simply argues—as he did to the superior court—that UAIC is
responsible for its insured driver’s negligence.

¶8 His contention is contrary to Arizona law. An injured party
generally has no claim against an insurer based solely on its coverage of the
alleged tortfeasor. Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, 82-83, ¶¶ 19, 23 (2017);
Assoc’d. Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Ariz. 137, 181, ¶ 155 (App. 2004).
Engram points to nothing in the record that establishes UAIC and the driver
had more than an insurer-insured relationship. On this record, UAIC was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231
Ariz. 209, 213, ¶ 16 (App. 2012). The superior court properly granted
summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3