Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Tallapoosa River Forest Products, Inc et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 6/19/2017. (JLC)

Download PDF
FILED 2017 Jun-19 PM 02:06 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TALLAPOOSA RIVER FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., BRADLEY YARBROUGH, d/b/a BRAD YARBROUGH TRUCKING, STEVEN A. LEDBETTER, ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY, KIMBERLY PRICE BROWN, and SAMANTHA ALFORD, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-CV-416-VEH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Motion [T]o Dismiss all claims in this case.” (Doc. 11 at 1). In support of the motion the Plaintiff states the following: 1. This case is a declaratory judgment action involving a Commercial Auto insurance policy issued by the Plaintiff to Tallapoosa River Forest Products, Inc. In this case, the Plaintiff sought a determination from the Court as to what, if any, coverage obligations it owes to its insured, as well as potentially others, pursuant to the policy of insurance with respect to a vehicular accident which occurred in Georgia on May 13, 2015. This accident resulted in two state court lawsuits in Georgia. 2. The two underlying lawsuits referenced in the Plaintiff’s Declaratory Judgment Complaint against Plaintiff’s insured and others in the State of Georgia, have recently been settled. The two previously-filed Georgia lawsuits gave rise to this declaratory judgment action. 3. In light of the settlement of the two Georgia lawsuits, the coverage issues asserted by the Plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action arising from the May 13, 2015[,] accident have become moot. While the settlement of the two Georgia cases referenced above have made the coverage issues moot with respect to those cases, the Plaintiff notes that the applicable Georgia statute of limitations has not expired as to other claims which may arise from the underlying incident. As such, the Plaintiff requests that the dismissal of this Declaratory Judgment action be “with prejudice” only with respect to the two previously filed Georgia lawsuits referenced above and not constitute a waiver of any coverage positions or defenses the Plaintiff may have with respect to other potential claims that may arise in the future. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff moves to dismiss all claims set out in the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. These claims are due to be dismissed, with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs. (Doc. 11 at 1-2). On May 31, 2017, this Court Ordered that “[any] [o]pposition [to the motion] [was] due in 14 calendar days.” (Doc. 14). No opposition has been filed. For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff’s motion, and in light of the fact that there is no opposition to the motion. This case will be dismissed by separate order. 2 DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2017. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?