Tyco International Ltd. v. Chartis Inc. et al
Filing
52
ORDER FOR REHEARING re 49 and 51 : the stay order is vacated and a hearing will be scheduled to reconsider the defendant's motion for summary judgment, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 5/14/2013. (rpmcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00832-RPM
ADT HOLDINGS, INC.,
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., and
AUTOMATED SECURITY CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER FOR REHEARING
_____________________________________________________________________
On January 20, 2012, this Court entered an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment based on the conclusion that the breach of a contractual promise in a willful
and wanton manner is not equivalent to the type of conduct that would make the insuring
agreement unenforceable as a matter of public policy. On April 5, 2012, a stay order entered
because of the expectation that the resolution of the appeal in the underlying action may clarify
the conduct which constitutes a willful and wanton breach of a commercial contract. The
Colorado Court of Appeals has now issued its decision as submitted in the attachment to the
Plaintiffs’ Advice of Resolution of Appeal in Related Case, filed May 7, 2013. Upon review of
that opinion and the discussion of willful and wanton breach of contract contained there, it is
determined that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be reheard. Accordingly,
it is
ORDERED that the stay order is vacated and a hearing will be scheduled to reconsider
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
DATED: May 14th, 2013
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge
2
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?