Are-East River Science Park LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company et al

Filing 191

JUDGMENT by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, in favor of Are-East River Science Park LLC against Lexington Insurance Company 190 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (rfi)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 ARE-EAST RIVER SCIENCE PARK,

Case No. 2:13-cv-1837-BRO-JCG

12

The Honorable Beverly Reid O’Connell

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
LLC,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
Complaint Filed: February 11, 2013
Trial Date: September 16, 2014

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DICKSTEIN
SHAPIRO LLP

JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
DOCSLA-122748

1

The action came on regularly for trial on September 16, 2014, in

2 Courtroom 14, the Honorable Beverly Reid O’Connell, Judge presiding.
3

Kirk A. Pasich, Fiona A. Chaney, and Iman G. Wilson of Dickstein

4 Shapiro LLP appeared as attorneys for plaintiff ARE-East River Science Park
5 LLC (“ARE”). Thomas M. Contois, Roger E. Warin, Jon T. Neumann, and
6 Jessica I. Rothschild appeared as attorneys for defendant Lexington Insurance
7 Company (“Lexington”).
8

A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses

9 were sworn and examined, and stipulated facts and documentary evidence were
10 introduced on behalf of the parties.
11

After hearing the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and instructions of

12 the Court, the cause was submitted to the jury, who retired to deliberate and
13 therein returned, unanimously, the following special verdict on September 19,
14 2014:

We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

15
16
17

1.

Did Lexington fail to do something that the policy required it to do or do
something that the policy prohibited?

18
19

X Yes

_____ No

20
21

If your answer to question 1 is “yes,” then answer question 2.

If you

22

answered “no,” then sign and date the form and notify the bailiff.

23
24
25

2. Was ARE harmed by that failure?
X Yes

_____ No

26
27
DICKSTEIN
SHAPIRO LLP

28

1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
DOCSLA-122748

1

If your answer to question 2 is “yes,” then answer question 3.

2

answered “no,” then skip to question 4.

3

If you

3. What are ARE’s damages?

4
5

$822,372.33

6
7

After answering question 3, answer question 4.

8
9
10
11

4. Was Lexington’s failure to pay or delay in payment of policy benefits
unreasonable or without proper cause?
X Yes

_____ No

12
13

If your answer to question 4 is “yes,” then answer question 5.

If you

14

answered “no,” stop here, answer no further questions, and have the

15

presiding juror sign and date this form.

16
17

5. Was Lexington’s failure to pay or delay in payment of policy benefits a

18

substantial factor in causing harm to ARE?

19

X Yes

_____ No

20
21

If your answer to question 5 is “yes,” then answer question 6.

If you

22

answered “no,” stop here, answer no further questions, and have the

23

presiding juror sign and date this form.

24
25

6. What is ARE’s cost of attorney fees to recover the insurance policy benefits

26

due under the policy?

27
DICKSTEIN
SHAPIRO LLP

28

2
JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
DOCSLA-122748

1

$792,926.96

2
3

After answering question 6, answer question 7.

4
5

7. Did Lexington engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?

6
7

_____ Yes

X No

8
9

If your answer to question 7 is yes, then answer question 8. If you

10

answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the

11

presiding juror sign and date this form.

12
13

8. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award ARE?

14
15

$0

16
17

It appears that by reason of the stated special verdict, ARE is entitled to

18 judgment against Lexington for compensatory damages of $822,372.33 and
19 damages for attorney fees of $792,926.96, for prejudgment interest, and for
20 costs and disbursements.
21
22

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

23

Plaintiff ARE-East River Science Park recover from defendant Lexington

24 Insurance Company:
25
26
27
DICKSTEIN
SHAPIRO LLP

28

3
JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
DOCSLA-122748

1

(1)

$147, 204.65;

2
3

$822,372.33, plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of

(2)

Attorney fees to recover the insurance policy benefits due under

4

the policy in the amount of $792,926.96, plus prejudgment interest

5

in the amount of $141,933.93;

6

(3)

Postjudgment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum

7

on the judgment amount of $1,904,437.87 (the total of the amounts

8

specified in paragraphs (1) and (2)) until paid; and

9

(4)

Costs to be determined upon ARE’s submission of a Bill of Costs.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2014

13
14
15

By:
HON. BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DICKSTEIN
SHAPIRO LLP

28

4
JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL
DOCSLA-122748