Riceland Foods Inc v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
75
ORDER granting the joint motion to dismiss certain claims and to stay and administratively close this action [DE #74]; all claims related to (1) defense costs incurred in the underlying suits through and including 10/31/2011; (2) Defendant's cl aim handling and actions or inactions concerning the underlying suits through 10/31/2011; and (3) Plaintiff's actions or inactions in defending or prosecuting the underlying suits through 10/31/2011 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case is ST AYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED with respect to all remaining claims. The parties shall file a joint report on or before 10/1/2012, stating the status of the underlying cases and whether this case can proceed or be dismissed. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/3/2012. (pag)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
RICELAND FOODS, INC.
Plaintiff
V.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NO: 4:10CV00091 SWW
Defendant
ORDER
Riceland Foods, Inc. (“Riceland”) brings this action against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company (“Liberty”), seeking a declaratory judgment regarding Liberty’s duty to
defend and indemnify Riceland in connection with underlying lawsuits. Now before the Court is
the parties’ joint motion to dismiss certain claims and defenses and to stay and administratively
close this case. After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow, the motion is granted on
the condition that the parties file periodic status reports as ordered by the Court.
Riceland is an agricultural cooperative that processes and markets rice for its farmer
members, and Liberty is an insurance company that issued commercial general liability policies
to Riceland. Riceland and various affiliates of Bayer Crop Science were named as defendants in
more than 170 civil lawsuits by rice growers and distributors, who claim that they suffered
damages from the contamination of the commercial rice supply by genetically modified rice.
Riceland notified Liberty of the underlying lawsuits and sought a defense under the
general liability policies. Under a reservation of rights, Liberty agreed to provide a defense in all
of the underlying lawsuits, with the exception of three, but then filed a claim for arbitration,
taking a no-coverage position as to all of the underlying lawsuits. On February 10, 2010,
Riceland commenced this action seeking a declaration regarding Liberty’s duties under the
policies.
By order entered August 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay
indemnification issues and to extend certain deadlines set forth the Court’s final scheduling
order. See docket entry #69. However, the Court advised the parties that the question of
Liberty’s duty to indemnify would not be stayed indefinitely, and the Court required the parties
to file monthly status reports regarding developments that affect the indemnification coverage
issue.
In support of their present motion, the parties report that so far, Riceland has not been
adjudicated liable in any of the underlying lawsuits, nor has Riceland paid money in settlement
of the underlying suits. Additionally, the parties report that they have settled matters, including
Riceland’s claims regarding defense costs in the underlying lawsuits incurred through and
including October 31, 2011. The parties move for dismissal with prejudice as to claims
regarding (1) defense costs incurred in the underlying suits through and including October 31,
2011; (2) Liberty’s claim handling and actions or inactions concerning the underlying suits
though October 31, 2011; and (3) Riceland’s actions or inactions in defending or prosecuting
the underlying suits through October 31, 2011.
The parties also ask the Court to stay and administratively close this case as to (1) actions
or inactions of either party occurring on or after November 1, 2011, (2) the parties’ rights and
obligations regarding indemnification for any settlements or judgments adverse to Riceland in
the underlying suits, and (3) any defense cost incurred after November 1, 2011. In the event that
the Court declines to stay and administratively close the case as requested, the parties request
2
that the Court dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.
In the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe for review
regardless of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved. See Capitol Indemnity
Corp. v. Miles, 978 F.2d 437, 438 (8th Cir. 1992).
However, because the parties are in
agreement that the unresolved issues should be stayed, the Court will grant the relief requested
on the condition that the parties file periodic reports regarding the status of the underlying cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the joint motion to dismiss certain claims and to
stay and administratively close the action (docket entry #74) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims related to (1) defense costs incurred in the
underlying suits through and including October 31, 2011; (2) Defendant’s claim handling and
actions or inactions concerning the underlying suits though October 31, 2011; and (3) Plaintiff’s
actions or inactions in defending or prosecuting the underlying suits through October 31, 2011
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED with respect to all remaining claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint report on or before
October 1, 2012, stating the status of the underlying cases and whether this case can
proceed or be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
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?