Avalon Condominium Association, Inc. v. SECURA Insurance

Filing 191

ORDER granting 111 Motion for Leave; denying 113 Motion to Strike. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 09/22/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00200-CMA-KMT
AVALON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURA INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to its
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Secura Insurance. (Doc. # 111.) In response, Plaintiff Avalon Condominium
Association filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplement. (Doc. # 113.)
Defendant contends that the Court should accept its Supplement because
Plaintiff produced new evidence in February of 2015, despite it being under an
obligation to produce the evidence since May of 2014. The “newly discovered”
evidence is a copy of a deductible buy-back policy purchased by Plaintiff at the same
time it purchased the Secura Policy from Defendant. The deductible buy-back policy
was issued to Plaintiff by Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s Policy”) and was effective from
December 29, 2011, to December 29, 2012, which is one day removed from the
effective dates of the Secura Policy.

Defendant argues its Supplement is relevant to show the meaning or
understanding of what wind/hail deductible Plaintiff expected from the Secura Policy.
Specifically, Defendant asserts that the Lloyd’s Policy, which it contends is not parol
evidence, reflects that Plaintiff purchased coverage from Lloyd’s of London to pay the
deductible for a wind or hail storm loss on the Secura Policy. The deductible in the
Lloyd’s Policy is the same amount as the deductible Defendant alleges is applicable on
the Secura Policy—$174,227.36—less thirty-six cents. Plaintiff contends that the
Supplement filed by Defendant is an improper attempt to introduce inadmissible
extrinsic evidence on an insurance policy that Defendant claims is unambiguous.
Supplementation of motions is committed to the sound discretion of the court.
See Burgard v. Super Valu Holdings, Inc., 1997 WL 278974, 113 F.3d 1245, at *4 (10th
Cir. 1997). In the interest of justice, the Court grants the motion for leave filed by
Defendant so that the Court may fully consider the parties’ arguments. The Court will
decide whether consideration of the Lloyd’s Policy is proper in interpreting the terms of
the Secura Policy when it issues an order on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Leave (Doc. # 111) filed by
Defendant is GRANTED and the Motion to Strike (Doc. # 113) filed by Plaintiff is
DENIED.

2

DATED: September 22, 2015
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3