Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Dickstein Shapiro LLP et al

Filing 183

JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (See document for details). The Court finds that as between Scottsdale and Underwriters, neither is a prevailing party, and that each will therefore bear their own costs, including attorney's fees if applicable. 7. The Court finds that Dickstein is a prevailing party as to Scottsdale, and in that regard is entitled to recovery of its costs in this action. (mrgo)

1

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRACT COURT

2
3

' '2019
APR 2

4

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY
DEPUTY

5

UNITED.STATES DISTRICT COUP T

6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 Scottsdale Insurance Company,
8

Case No. 18-cv- 2893-SVW-GJS

Plaintiff,

9

~'[ ~
v.

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

]JUDGMENT

Dickstein Shapiro LLP; Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London,including Brit UW
Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
2987, Beazley Furlonge Ltd. for and on behalf
of L;loyd's Syndicate 2623, Beazley Furlonge
Ltd. for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
0623, Faraday Capital Limited for and on
behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 0435, Amlin
Underwriting Limited for and on behalf of
Lloyd's Syndicate 2001, and Renaissance Re
Group for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
1458; Lexington Insurance Company; and
Swiss Re International SE —Zurich,
Defendants.

2
0
21 ~
22
23
2
4
25
2
6
27
28

[
PROPOSED]JUDGMENT

Dickstein Shapiro LLP,
2

Counter and cross-claimant,

3

v.

4 Scottsdale Insurance Company,
5
6

Counter-defendant,
and

7 Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
including Brit UW Limited for and on behalf
8 of Lloyd's Syndicate 2987, Beazley Furlonge
Ltd. for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
9 2623, Beazley Furlonge Ltd. for and on behalf
10 of Lloyd's Syndicate 0623, Faraday Capital
Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
1 1 0435, Amlin Underwriting Limited for and on
behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 2001, and
12 Renaissance Re Group for and on behalf of
Lloyd's Syndicate 1458; Lexington Insurance
13 Company; and Swiss Re International SE —
14 Zurich,
Cross-defendants.
15
16 Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
including Brit UW Limited for and on behalf
17 of Lloyd's Syndicate 2987, Beazley Furlonge
18 Ltd. for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
2623, Beazley Furlonge Ltd. for and on behalf
19 of Lloyd's Syndicate 0623, Faraday Capital
Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate
20 0435, Amlin Underwriting Limited for and on
21 behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 2001, and
Renaissance Re Group for and on behalf of
22 Lloyd's Syndicate 1458; Lexington Insurance
Company; and Swiss Re International SE —
23 Zurich,
2
4
25

Counter-claimants,
v.

2 Scottsdale Insurance Company,
6
27

Counter-defendant.

~Q
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

The Court, having granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary

2 judgment of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company
3 ("Scottsdale") and of Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
4 London,including Brit UW Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 2987, Beazley
5 Furlonge Ltd. for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 2623, Beazley Furlonge Ltd. for and
6 on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 0623, Faraday Capital Limited for and on behalf of
~

Lloyd's Syndicate 0435, Amlin Underwriting Limited for and on behalf of Lloyd's

g

Syndicate 2001, Renaissance Re Group for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 1458,

9 Lexington Insurance Company, and Swiss Re International SE —Zurich (collectively
10 ~~Underwriters") by its Order filed March 13, 2019(Dkt. 178), hereby finds and enters
1 1 this JUDGMENT as follows:
12

1. The Primary Claims Made and Reported Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance

13

policy issued by Underwriters to Dickstein Shapiro LLP ("Dickstein"), identified as

14

Policy No. B0621PKIC00212(the "Primary Policy") for the period from December

15

20, 2012 to December 20,2013, has been exhausted by the monies paid by the

16

Underwriters to SFA Group, LLC("SFA") pursuant to the Confidential Settlement

1~

Agreement and General Release executed on December 7, 2017(the"SFA

1g

Settlement Agreement").

19

2, The First Excess Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance policy issued by the

2
0

Underwriters identified as Policy No. B0621PDIC00312(the "Underwriters First

21

Excess Policy") is eroded by the SFA Settlement Agreement in an amount of

22

$4,501,454.

23

3. The First Excess Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Policy issued by

2
4

Scottsdale, via its managing agent Huntersure LLC,identified as Policy No.

25

B0621PDIC00312001 (the "Scottsdale First Excess Policy") and the Underwriters

2
6

First Excess Policy (collectively, the "First Excess Policy") is the operative

27

insurance policy for Dickstein's defense in the action against Dickstein styled,

~R

Kevin R. McCarthy, as Chapter 7 BankYuptcy TrusteefoY Charles TayloY Muhs v.
1
[
PROPOSED]JUDGMENT

1
2

Dickstein ShapiYo LLC &Neal S. Barlia, Index No. 58535/2017(the "Muhs
Action"). A-~o~a;~n~~,

~

Cnn+t~a~~A

,,.~~P~ n;,.~~~tP;n Ica ~Qoi „fn;,.U~+v;,,~~~,~ ~,~

vv vraxxxs:~vvv[[C RCeiG d r~ vo

3.

=v cDcvx:rsree-o-f o vx ~xv=cock v uviviiov

~'~(1\ ~
~
4
~+L,;~ T'
--- --4
i n~l~ l~/[,_~o Qr~tinn ~ to lea nail ~x~itl~ir, +1~' +
m r~
~~ui ~~ `✓ v J uuy u vi vu~i y vi 1.lii~T- U~L~111V11 L.
J

4

4 Underwriters are not entitled to any monetary contribution from Scottsdale for the
.

5

amount of the SFA Settlement Agreement paid from Underwriters First Excess

6

Policy, and to this extent Scottsdale prevails on Underwriters' claim for equitable

7

contribution.

8

5. With respect to the competing claims of Scottsdale (see First Amended Complaint,

9

Dkt. 14, ¶ 58) and Underwriters (see Counterclaim, Dkt. 54,¶ 72]) concerning their

10

respective responsibility for indemnity of Dickstein in the Muhs Action, the Court:

11

[
_] Enters Judgment in favor of Underwriters that Scottsdale is responsible

12

for 29.38% of Dickstein's indemnity in the Muhs Action under the Scottsdale

13

First Excess Policy; or

14
15

Determines that since the settlement of the Muhs Action has not yet
V

been paid, this issue of indemnity is not ad'udicated in this action and instead
J

16
17

is left for resolution by the parties outside of this action.
6. The Court finds that as between Scottsdale and Underwriters, neither is a prevailing

18

party, and that each will therefore bear their own costs, including attorney's fees if

19

applicable.

20

7. The Court finds that Dickstein is a prevailing party as to Scottsdale, and in that

21

regard is entitled to recovery of its costs in this action.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

23

~~ DATED:
25

y /9
~

.~.
__ , ,

— -~~
Hon. t hen V. Wilson
United States District Judge

2
6
27
~Q
2
[
PROPOSED]JUDGMENT