McGill et al v. National Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 266

ORDER denying in part 264 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants shall file a response to the motion for reconsideration as stated in the order on or before 10/14/2014. No reply shall be permitted unless ordered by the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/7/2014.(DGC, nvo)

Download PDF
    1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 KnightBrook Insurance Company and Knight Management Insurance Services, LLC, No. CV12-1671 PHX DGC ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 12 v. 13 Payless Car Rental System, Inc.; PCR Venture of Phoenix, LLC, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 264. The motion argues 18 that the Court’s order dated September 3, 2014 (Doc. 261) misapprehended Bovre’s 19 relationship with attorney Collins. It argues that Collins represented Travelers and not 20 Bovre, undercutting the basis for the Court’s ruling. The Court will deny the motion in 21 part and require Defendants to respond to one issue. 22 Plaintiffs’ only response to paragraphs 23 and 24 of Defendants’ statement of facts 23 was an objection based on the attorney-client privilege. Doc. 224 at 14. Plaintiffs did not 24 dispute the substance of the paragraphs or the deposition testimony cited, which the Court 25 has read. 26 objection well founded, both because Mr. Bovre testified freely about the subjects at 27 issue after being told that he did not need to reveal privileged communications (id.), and 28 because the Court doubts Plaintiffs’ standing to assert Bovre’s privilege. Paragraphs 23 See Doc. 224-2 at 77-79. The Court does not find Plaintiffs’ privilege     1 and 24 of Defendants’ statement of facts assert that, before June 24, 2010, (1) Bovre 2 explained to Collins that he believed he should have received SLI coverage, and 3 (2) Bovre understood Collins represented him in pursuing such coverage. Doc. 224 at 14. 4 With Plaintiffs’ privilege objection overruled, these facts are undisputed. In addition, it is 5 clear that Bovre knew by June 24, 2010 that the desk agent had failed to create a written 6 contract that clearly included SLI coverage. Given these undisputed facts, Bovre had 7 reason to know before June 24, 2010 that the desk agent had failed to document the SLI 8 coverage Bovre thought he was getting, and that Bovre had caused injuries to the McGills 9 far in excess of his other insurance coverage. 10 For the statute of limitations to be triggered, Bovre must have had knowledge 11 sufficient to identify that (1) a wrong occurred and (2) caused injury. Walk v. Ring, 44 12 P.3d 990, 996 (2002). By June 24, 2010, the first requirement was satisfied – Bovre 13 possessed knowledge sufficient to recognize that a wrong had occurred (the desk agent 14 had failed to document the SLI coverage, creating a significant problem for Bovre). The 15 Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider on this issue. 16 The Court will require Defendants to respond to a second issue – whether Bovre 17 suffered appreciable, non-speculative harm before June 28, 2010. See Commercial Union 18 Ins. Co. v. Lewis & Roca, 902 P.2d 1354, 1358 (Ariz. 1995). Plaintiffs argued in their 19 response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that harm did not occur until SLI 20 coverage was denied on July 1, 1010. The Court rejected this argument on the ground 21 that Bovre had been forced to hire counsel before that date. Doc. 261 at 6 n.2. Materials 22 identified in the motion to reconsider, and provided as part of the summary judgment 23 briefing, suggest that Collins was hired by Travelers, not Bovre. 24 25 26 27 28 ‐ 2 ‐      1 2 3 Defendants shall address this issue in a response to the motion to reconsider, not to exceed seven pages, by October 14, 2014. No reply shall be filed unless ordered. Dated this 7th day of October, 2014. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‐ 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?