Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. et al v. Landmark American Insurance Company

Filing 28

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 24 Motion to Strike 14 Cross 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

TWENTY FIRST CENTURY HOLINESS
TABERNACLE CHURCH, INC.;
ANGELA MORALES; SHARON ALAMO;
and SALLY DEMOULIN

VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 13-CV-4037

LANDMARK INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) and
Motion to Strike Reply (ECF No. 24). This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to the
rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy issued by Defendant. PlaintiffInsureds seek a declaration from the Court regarding Defendant’s contractual obligations to defend
and indemnify Plaintiffs in Kolbek, et al. v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, et
al., No. 4:10-cv-04124.
Since the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) and motions for summary judgment,
the configuration of the case underlying this declaratory judgment action has changed dramatically.
Many of the Plaintiff-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 Plaintiff-Insureds in this action, there are currently
no claims against them in an underlying suit that would implicate Defendant’s insurance policies.

In light of these developments, the Court finds that updated motions for summary judgments
are necessary. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Reply (ECF No. 24) 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
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
Libaility & Fire Insurance Company v. Desiree Kolbek, et al, No. 4:12-cv-4126.
2