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)

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