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)

Download PDF
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: (949) 760-0991 25 Attorneys for Defendant and ยท Counterclaimant 26 County of San Bernardino 27 28 10325357 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAY ORDER (Case No. EDCVl6-00128 PSG SSx)

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?