Canopius Capital Two Limited et al v. Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 99 Motion to Strike 77 . See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 16, 2014. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CANOPIUS CAPITAL TWO LIMITED,
et al

VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 11-CV-4070

JEANNE ESTATES APARTMENTS, INC.,
et al

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77) and Motion
to Strike Defendants’ Response to Summary Judgment (ECF No. 99). This is an action seeking a
declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy
issued by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the Court regarding its contractual obligations
to defend and indemnify Defendant-Insureds in cases before this Court and Arkansas state court:
Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124;
Ondirsek, et al. v. Hoffman, No. 4:08-cv-04113; and Coie v. Alamo, et al., No. CV-2009-1854(V),
Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas.
Since the filing of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 49), Motion for Summary
Judgment, and Motion to Strike, the configuration of the cases underlying this declaratory judgment
action has changed dramatically. Many of the Defendant-Insureds who were parties in Kolbek, et
al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124 have had the
claims against them settled and/or dismissed. The final dismissal of all claims in Kolbek, et al. v.
Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124 was affirmed by the

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11, 2014. Thus, for many of the Defendant-Insureds
in this action, there may be no claims against them in an underlying suit that would implicate
Plaintiffs’ insurance policies.
In light of these developments, the Court finds that updated motions for summary judgments
are necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77) is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 99) is hereby
DENIED AS MOOT.
Any motions for summary judgment must be filed on or before October 14, 2014. The Court
asks that the parties explicitly address the current disposition of each underlying cause of action
referenced in the First Amended Complaint as well as any newly filed actions that may implicate
Plaintiffs’ insurance policies. The Court also requests that the parties fully discuss, with supporting
law, whether a justiciable controversy still exists as to the insurance coverage of Defendant-Insureds
whose claims in the underlying suit(s) have been settled and/or dismissed.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

1

It is worth noting that similar declaratory judgment actions against some of the same DefendantInsureds have been voluntarily dismissed in light of the settlement agreement reached in Kolbek, et
al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No. 4:10-cv-04124. See Cameron
Mutual Insurance Company v. Steve Johnson, et al, No. 4:11-cv-4051; National Libaility & Fire
Insurance Company v. Desiree Kolbek, et al, No. 4:12-cv-4126.
2