Allstate Life Insurance Company v. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et al.
Filing
950
ORDER granting the 691 Motion for Summary Judgment of Wells Fargo Bank NA. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/13/13.(REW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Lead Case No. CV-09-08162-PCT-GMS
In Re: Allstate Life Insurance Company
Litigation
11
Consolidated with:
No. CV-09-8174-PCT-GMS
ORDER
12
13
14
15
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Third-party
16
Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Wells Fargo Bank, NA (the “Trustee”).
17
(Doc. 691.) The Trustee moves to dismiss the Town of Prescott Valley’s counterclaim
18
against it for indemnification.
19
On November 18, 2011, the Court dismissed the Town’s counterclaim for
20
indemnification against Wells Fargo for claims asserted against the Town “related to the
21
omission of material facts from the Official Statements.” (Doc. 433 at 10.)
22
Indemnification “is an all or nothing proposition damage-wise, and hence should be an all
23
or nothing proposition fault-wise.” Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz. App. 428, 435,
24
498 P.2d 502, 509 (Ct. App. 1972). The Court reasoned:
If the factfinder agrees that the Town is not responsible for the
contents of these statements, the Town will not be liable for any such
negligent omission. If, on the other hand, the Town is held liable for
the omissions in the Official Statements, it will be because the
factfinder determined that the Town and the Trustee shared the
responsibility for creating the Official Statements. And if the Town
25
26
27
28
1
and Trustee shared the responsibility for creating the Official
Statements, then they would also share any fault for the alleged
omissions.
2
3
(Doc. 433 at 11.) Thus, because indemnification is only available to “one who pays
4
damages but is without personal fault,” Transcon Lines, 498 P.2d at 511, the Town could
5
not seek indemnification against the Trustee. The Town could not “be both without
6
personal fault and at the same time liable for the omissions in the Official Statements.”
7
(Doc. 433 at 11.)
8
However, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to the Town’s
9
indemnification claim “related to the Town’s alleged failure to deliver certain pledged tax
10
revenues to the Bondholders.” (Id.) This is because the Town plead that it was obligated
11
to make periodic payments of the tax revenues, but that it was the Trustee’s duty to
12
ensure that a system was in place so that the Town could timely budget for and thus pay
13
the pledged tax revenues. Under this theory, the Town could be held liable to its failure to
14
meet its obligation but still be wholly without fault, as its inability to pay would be due
15
solely to the Trustee’s failure to ensure the existence of the system.
16
The Trustee now moves for summary judgment on the second indemnification
17
claim, asserting that there are no claims against the Town in which the Town could be
18
held liable and also wholly without fault. (Doc. 693 at 1.) The Trustee argues that the
19
only claims left against the Trustee are based on the Town’s “active participation in the
20
issuance of a misleading OS and its non-disclosures in 2005.” (Id. at 4.) The Town’s
21
liability on these claims rises and falls with the Town’s fault in the situation—these
22
claims that the Trustee was actively involved in the fraudulent statements underlying this
23
litigation do not allow for a holding that the Town is both liable and without fault.1
24
25
1
26
27
28
The Town also appears to be arguing that any wrongdoing alleged by Plaintiffs
would constitute only passive negligence, as opposed to active negligence, though it fails
to make the argument expressly. However, the “continued viability” of the distinction
between active and passive negligence “is very much in doubt,” particularly with regard
to claims of common law (as opposed to contractual) indemnification. Herstam v.
Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 186 Ariz. 110, 118, 919 P.2d 1381, 1389 (Ct. App. 1996).
-2-
1
The Town objects to this characterization of the claims against it, arguing that the
2
Plaintiffs’ claims against the Town still stem from the allegation that it “missed or could
3
‘evade’ payments.” (Doc. 863 at 3.) It asserts that any claims regarding the Town making
4
misleading statements regarding the pledge of tax revenues “cannot be actionable without
5
harm resulting from nonpayment of TPT Revenues. (Id. at 6.) Furthermore, the Town
6
argues that to the extent the Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Town’s involvement in
7
defects in the drafting of the Bond Documents, the evidence will show that the Town was
8
not responsible, and thus it can still maintain a claim of indemnification against the
9
Trustee. (Id. at 5.)
10
In Reply, the Trustee disclaims any causes of action against the Trustee based on
11
nonpayment of TPT Revenues. (Doc. 916 at 3.) The Trustee states that it only brought
12
two claims against the Town for missed payments of TPT Revenues: a breach of contract
13
and reformation claim based on alleged nonpayment in November 2007, which was
14
dismissed by the Court in its 2010 Motion to Dismiss Order (Doc. 212 at 52–54) and
15
another breach of contract claim based on an April 2011 payment, against which the
16
Town has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that the Trustee does not oppose. (Doc.
17
913 at 3.) The Trustee also points to the Plaintiffs’ separate Motion for Summary
18
Judgment against the Town’s other counterclaims, in which Plaintiffs stated that they
19
would not seek any damages from the Town based on TPT payments made in the past or
20
that will be made in the future. (See Doc. 696 at 6–9.) Thus, “the Town no longer faces
21
liability stemming from non-payment of TPT Revenues.” (Doc. 913 at 4.)
22
Based on the Trustee’s representations in its pleadings, the Court finds that there
23
are no longer any claims against the Town on which it can be found both liable and
24
wholly not at fault. The Town’s second indemnification claim originally survived the
25
motion to dismiss because it alleged an obligation on the part of the Town that could be
26
breached without any wrongdoing by the Town. Now that Plaintiffs have no claims based
27
on the Town’s breach of that obligation, the reasoning in the November 18 Order no
28
longer holds.
-3-
1
The Town’s argument that any claim against it for defects in the pledge of TPT
2
Revenues necessarily involves the nonpayment of TPT Revenues misses the point. It
3
does not, in fact, appear that Plaintiffs seek any damages or rescission based on the
4
nonpayment of TPT Revenues; rather, they seek recovery on the ground that defects in
5
the drafting of the Bond Documents created misstatements or omissions in the OS, which
6
led to the devaluation of their Bonds, regardless of whether any payments of TPT
7
Revenues were missed. Moreover, nonpayment of TPT Revenues as a mere element in a
8
claim is insufficient to give rise to a claim for indemnification; the Trustee must show
9
that a holding could issue which would result in it being held liable for an action for
10
which it was entirely without fault.
11
Nor does the Town’s argument that evidence will show its lack of responsibility
12
for the misstatements or omissions in the OS hold water. Though the Town might
13
successfully show its lack of involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities at hand, this
14
would simply mean that it is wholly without fault, in which case the Plaintiffs would not
15
be able to recover from it, and its claim of indemnification would be moot. If the Town
16
fails to successfully show its lack of involvement, then a finding against it would require
17
a finding of wrongdoing, in which case the indemnity claim would be foreclosed.
18
Because the Town has shown no facts that it could “be both without personal fault and at
19
the same time liable,” the Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
20
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
21
691) of Wells Fargo Bank, NA is GRANTED.
22
Dated this 13th day of September, 2013.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?