Zurich Re (UK) Limited v. Wolf et al
Filing
53
ORDER denying 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. 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
ZURICH RE (UK) LIMITED
VS.
PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-4122
DONN WOLF, et al
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) and Defendant
Advantage Food Group, Advantage Sales, Sonny Brubach, Ron Decker, Steve Lovellette, Donn Wolf’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34). This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to
the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff. Plaintiff
seeks a declaration from the Court regarding its contractual obligations to defend and indemnify
Defendant-Insureds in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et al., No.
4:10-cv-04124.
Since the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) and motions for summary
judgment, the composition of this case has changed dramatically. 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, there appear to be no claims against
the Defendant-Insureds in an underlying suit that would implicate Plaintiffs’ insurance policies.
In light of these developments, the Court finds that updated motions are necessary. Accordingly,
Advantage Food Group, Advantage Sales, Sonny Brubach, Ron Decker, Steve Lovellette, Donn Wolf’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 Second Amended Complaint as well as any newly filed actions that may implicate
Plaintiff’s 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
Defendant-Insureds 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
Liability & Fire Insurance Company v. Desiree Kolbek, et al, No. 4:12-cv-4126.
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?