Purifoy v. Geico Casualty Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTONIO PURIFOY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, )
) CIV. A. NO. 24-0301-MU
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Third-Party Defendant. )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff Antonio Purifoy, was involved in an automobile
accident with Caleb A. Quackenbush at the intersection of Cottage Hill Road and
Pleasant Road in Mobile, Alabama. (Doc. 1-1; PageID. 6). Quackenbush was employed
by the Coast Guard as a Seaman at the time of the automobile accident with Plaintiff.
(Doc. 1-3; PageID. 10-11). Plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy with Geico
Casualty Company that provided uninsured and underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”)
coverage. (Id.; PageID. 5-6).
On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Mobile County,
Alabama, against Geico seeking UM/UIM benefits as a result of the accident with
Quackenbush and Geico, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Quackenbush
seeking subrogation and/or indemnification. (Docs. 1-1 and 1-2). The United States
Case 1:24-cv-00301-MU Doc# 35 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID# <pageID>

2
removed the action to this Court on August 27, 2024 and was substituted as the third-
party defendant in place of Quackenbush pursuant to the Westfall Act. (Docs. 1, 26).
On September 3, 2024, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the third-party
complaint filed against it by Geico, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on the grounds that Quackenbush as a Coast Guard employee is
entitled to Westfall Act immunity. (Doc. 5). Defendant Geico filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint on September 17, 2024, adopting the arguments asserted by the
United States. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff Antonio Purifoy filed a response to this motion. (Doc.
10). Plaintiff also included in his response a motion to strike the United States Attorney’s
scope of employment certification. The United States filed a brief in reply to these
filings. (Doc. 17).
In light of Plaintiff’s motion to strike the scope of employment certification, the
Court ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether
Quackenbush was acting within the scope of his employment (Doc. 28), and the parties
conducted such discovery. Thereafter, the parties fully briefed the issue (Docs. 32 and
33), and the motion to strike the United States Attorney’s scope of employment
certification came before the Court for oral argument on February 13, 2025. At oral
argument, the parties agreed that the sole issue to be determined was whether
Quackenbush was acting within the line and scope of his employment with the Coast
Guard at the time of the accident. The parties further agreed that the Court’s conclusion
on this issue was also determinative of the pending motions to dismiss.
Having considered the well-written and thorough briefs of the parties and the
well-presented oral arguments, for the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiff’s motion to
Case 1:24-cv-00301-MU Doc# 35 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID# <pageID>

3
strike the United States Attorney’s scope of employment certification is DENIED.
Therefore, because Quackenbush was acting within the line and scope of his
employment at the time of the accident, Westfall Act immunity applies. Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss Geico’s third party complaint filed by Third-Party Defendant United
States of America (Doc. 5) and the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Antonio Purifoy’s
complaint filed by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Geico Casualty Company (Doc. 8) are
hereby GRANTED.
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that both Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1-1) and Third-Party Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-2) are hereby DISMISSED with
prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED this the 14th day of February, 2025.
s/P. BRADLEY MURRAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00301-MU Doc# 35 Filed 02/14/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID# <pageID>