Ironstone Condominiums Association at Stroh Ranch Owners Association, Inc. v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company
Filing
51
COURTROOM MINUTES for Motion Hearing held on 10/3/2013 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. ORDERED: Defendant's Motion to Preclude William McLoughlin, Any Employee or Representative of Plaintiff and Public Adjusters of Colorado, LLC, and Any Expert Endorsed by Plaintiff from Supervising, Attending, or Otherwise Participating in Any Manner With Peerlesss Retained Experts Inspection of the Property And Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Hearing 37 is GRANTED, as stated on record. FTR: S. Grimm. (sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No:
Courtroom Deputy:
12-cv-03160-CMA-KMT
Sabrina Grimm
Date: October 4, 2013
FTR: Courtroom C-201
Parties:
Counsel:
IRONSTONE CONDOMINIUMS AT STROH RANCH
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a/k/a IRONSTONE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT STROH
RANCH, a non-profit Colorado corporation,
Stuart Anderson
Plaintiff,
v.
PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,
Troy Olsen
Lyndsay Arundel
Defendant.
COURTROOM MINUTES
Motion Hearing
1:32 p.m.
Court in session.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.
Also present and seated in the gallery, William McLoughlin.
The matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Preclude William McLoughlin, Any
Employee or Representative of Plaintiff and Public Adjusters of Colorado, LLC, and Any Expert
Endorsed by Plaintiff from Supervising, Attending, or Otherwise Participating in Any Manner
With Peerless’s Retained Experts’ Inspection of the Property And Request for Expedited
Briefing Schedule and Hearing [37] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37
[34].
Mr. Olsen states he is not prepared to argue Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [34].
Discussion regarding relevancy of underwriter’s file, insurance claims, loss ratio, policy renewal,
premiums, property inspections, and notice of non-renewal,
Mr. Olsen states the notice of non-renewal was sent to the property management company.
Court states its understanding of the issues pertaining to Motion [37].
Discussion regarding inspection, liability, exposure, liability insurance, inspections issues such
as paint, signs, light fixtures, and windows.
Court notes that the scheduling order anticipates a 5 day jury trial however both sides agree that
the anticipated trial will take longer.
ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Preclude William McLoughlin, Any Employee or
Representative of Plaintiff and Public Adjusters of Colorado, LLC, and Any
Expert Endorsed by Plaintiff from Supervising, Attending, or Otherwise
Participating in Any Manner With Peerless’s Retained Experts’ Inspection
of the Property And Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule and Hearing
[37] is GRANTED, as stated on record.
Defendant’s property inspections will occur by November 14, 2013. Counsel
for defendant is directed to contact Mr. Anderson and provide notification of
when an inspection will be occurring and the approximate location of the
inspection within the complex. Defendant’s counsel will provide assurances
that all inspectors have liability insurance in place. Counsel is to work
together to schedule the Defendant’s inspections during times when Mr.
McLoughlin’s presence is not otherwise required on the property, for
instance for warrant or other building inspections.
Mr. Mcloughlin is directed to vacate the property while Defendant’s
inspectors are present on the property. If Mr. McLoughlin requires access to
the property during that time, he is directed to notify Mr. Anderson. Mr.
Anderson is then directed to contact defendant’s counsel, at which time they
will notify their inspectors who may vacate the premises if they choose. If
Mr. McLoughlin should inadvertently observe any of Defendant’s
inspections while underway, he will not be allowed to present testimony in
any form about those observations, at trial or at any hearing, nor may any
expert or other witness testify about anything Mr. McLaughlin may have
told them about his inspection observations.
The court anticipates that Plaintiffs will accommodate the inspections
whenever possible because of the large number of inspections which must be
performed in a very limited time frame.
The term “Mr. McLoughlin” refers to William McLoughlin, employees of Mr. McLoughin, and
the home owner’s association for the property. Maintenance workers are allowed to be present
during the course of normal work and should not be monitoring the inspections while they occur.
Discussion regarding awarding costs for unnecessary disruption and extending expert disclosure
deadlines.
Court advises that if there are any problems with executing the order, parties are directed to
contact chambers.
2:46 p.m.
Court in recess.
Hearing concluded.
Total in-court time 01:14
*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.
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?