The Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania v. The County of San Bernardino

Filing 304

FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)

E-FILED 11/22/17
2

JS-6

3
4
5

6
7
8

9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

THE INSURANCE COMP ANY OF
15 THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a
Pennsylvania insurance company,

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18

Case No. EDCV16-00128 PSG (SSx)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
AND STAY ORDER

Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
Courtroom: 6A

1-----{
10325357

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER
(Case No. EDCVJ6-00128 PSG SSx)

FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER
2

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant The Insurance Company of the State of

3

Pennsylvania ("ICSOP") and Defendant and Counterclaimant The County of San

4

Bernardino (the "County") (collectively, the "Parties") have informed this Court that

5

they have finalized an agreement which sets forth a framework for settling the

6 claims at issue in this action, subject to the occurrence of certain contingencies set
7

forth therein (the "Contingent Settlement Agreement").
The Court, having considered these matters, including the Contingent

8
9

Settlement Agreement and all the papers filed in connection therewith, and good

l O cause appearing therefore,
ll

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
I.

12

In accordance with the Court's March 8, 2017 Order Denying the

13

County's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Interpreting the Insurance

14

Policies in Favor of the Insurer (the "Anti-Stacking Ruling"), Dkt. No. 45, final

15

judgment is entered in ICSOP's favor on its First Cause of Action in its First

16

Amended Complaint and against the County to the extent of any related claims in its

17

Corrected Counterclaim. The Court hereby declares and interprets that the "Prior

18

Insurance Non-Cumulation of Liability" clause ("Condition C") contained in the

19 ICSOP Policies (as defined in ICSOP's First Amended Complaint) is an "anti-

20 stacking" provision that prevents the County from "stacking" the policy limits of
21

each ICSOP Policy;
2.

22
23

Rules of Civil Procedure;
3.

24
25

This Final Judgment is entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal

The Court expressly finds that this Final Judgment constitutes a full

and final disposition of a discrete claim in this multiple-claims action;
4.

26

The Court expressly finds and determines that there is no just reason

27 for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment;
5.

28

10325357

The Court finds that the correct interpretation of Condition C is not
(PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER
(Case No. EDCV16-00128 PSG SSx)

only at issue in this litigation, but also that the Parties have admitted that it presently
2 and materially affects other pending insurance claims between them with respect to
3

potential coverage for millions of dollars of loss that the County alleges it incurred

4

in connection with its liability for purported environmental damages involving

5

additional properties (the "Additional Stacking Disputes");
6.

6

The Court finds that the remaining claims in this action, which deal

7

with the number of covered occurrences at issue (if any) and the amount of covered

8

loss (if any), are separate from the stacking issue addressed in the Anti-Stacking

9 Ruling, and present questions of fact that are discrete from the legal issue of
IO stacking;

7.

11

The Court acknowledges that the Parties intend to and will appeal the

12

Court's Anti-Stacking Ruling, which appeal will determine the payment, if any, of

13

the Disputed Loss (as that term is defined by the Contingent Settlement Agreement)

14

and the impact of the Anti-Stacking Ruling, if any, upon this action and the

15

Additional Stacking Disputes;
8.

16
17

The Court finds that the Parties have agreed in the Contingent

Settlement Agreement that if there is no appellate review of the Anti-Stacking

18 Ruling which results in a ruling on the legal merits regarding the interpretation of
19

Condition C, the Contingent Settlement Agreement will be void. Under those

20 circumstances, the Parties will then seek to try the remaining claims in this action
21

and appeal the Anti-Stacking Ruling on its merits at the conclusion of trial. On the

22

other hand, the Parties have also agreed that if such appellate ruling is issued on the

23

legal merits regarding the interpretation of Condition C and such ruling becomes

24

final, such finality will result in the Contingent Settlement Agreement becoming

25

final and will also result in the Parties filing a stipulated dismissal of the remaining

26

claims in this action with prejudice;
9.

27

28

The Court further finds that an immediate appellate interpretation of

Condition C will preclude courts from having to review the issue under California

10325357

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER
(Case No. EDCV16-00128 PSG SSx)

law a second time, including in any litigation resulting from the Additional Stacking
2 Disputes. Given the potential for continued and future litigation concerning this
3 issue, an immediate interlocutory appeal will conserve significant judicial resources;
10.

4

During the pendency of such appeal, the remainder of this action shall

5

be stayed in all respects and all currently-scheduled dates shall be taken off

6

calendar, until such time as the Parties shall jointly move to lift the stay or shall file

7

a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims in this action;
11.

8

No award of attorneys' fees or costs, or of expert fees or costs is made

9 in favor of either the County or ICSOP in this matter; and
12.

JO

Without in any way affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and

11

Stay Order, this Court hereby retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the

12

Parties for the purposes of interpreting or enforcing this Final Judgment and Stay

13

Order and the Contingent Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED

14

15
16

Dated: 11/22/17

17
18

HON. PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

20

Submitted by:

21

Andra B. Greene (CA SBN 123931)
22 Marc S. Maister (SBN 155980)
Harry J. Schulz, HI (SBN 205625)
23 IRELL & MANELLA LLP
840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
24 Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
Telephone: [phone]
25 Attorneys for Defendant and
·
Counterclaimant
26 County of San Bernardino
27

28

10325357

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER
(Case No. EDCVl6-00128 PSG SSx)