The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. AW Dynamometer Inc et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 42 , Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. See full written order. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 2/22/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Main Document 47 replaced on 2/22/2018) (JS, ilcd).

E-FILED

Thursday, 22 February, 2018 11:21:52 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-CV-01164-JES-JEH
v.
AW Dynamometer, Inc., et al,
Defendants.

Order
Now before the Court are the Plaintiff, Cincinnati Insurance Company’s, Motion for
Default Judgment against David Koons (D. 42),

1

the Defendants’, AW Dynamometer, Inc.,

Christopher Robinson, Jon Robinson, and Delbert Robinson (the “AW Defendants”), Response
(D. 45), and the Plaintiff’s Reply (D. 48). For the reasons stated, infra, the Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED.
The Plaintiff brought their suit for declaratory judgment in April 2017. (D. 1; D. 22). The
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to a declaration from the Court that the insurance policies it issued
to AW Dynamometer do not obligate the Plaintiff to defend or indemnify the AW Defendants, or
the remaining Defendants in this suit—DCMJ, Inc. and David Koons—in a suit brought against
the Defendants in Emmet County, Iowa (Dyno Tech Services, LLC, et al v. AW Dynamometer,
Inc., et al., Emmet Co., Iowa, No. LACV019262). Id. All of the Defendants, with the exception
of Koons, filed a joint Answer, Affirmative Defense, and Counterclaim (D. 28), to which the
Plaintiff filed an Answer (D. 32).

1

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

1

Koons was served with a copy of the Complaint on November 9, 2017. (D. 33). To date,
he has failed to plead or otherwise defend the claims against him. On December 6, 2017, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Koons. (D. 36). The Court requested sufficient
proof of service from the Plaintiff before ruling on the Motion. (See the Court’s December 21,
2017 text order). The Plaintiff submitted supplemental proof (D. 40), the Court granted the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default against Koons, and the Clerk entered default. (See the
Court’s January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018 text orders).
The Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on January 31, 2018, seeking default judgment against
Koons. (D. 42). The Plaintiff specifically asks the Court to find that Koons is not an insured under
the insurance policies which the Plaintiff issued to AW Dynamometer, and claims that there is no
potential for inconsistent judgments if the Court does so. Id. at pg. 1-2. The AW Defendants
assert that such a finding will run the risk inconsistent judgments and is actually tantamount to this
Court determining that the allegations in the underlying Iowa lawsuit allege conduct outside the
scope of Koon’s alleged employment with AW Dynamometer. (D. 45).
As noted previously, the Plaintiff is also seeking a declaratory judgment against the AW
Defendants in this case. The Court could, potentially, find that the AW Defendants are successful
on the merits. This creates the potential for a default judgment against Koons that is logically
inconsistent with the Court’s subsequent finding. Under such a scenario, the Court will have found
that the Plaintiff simultaneously does and does not have a duty to defend and indemnify under the
terms of its insurance policy.
In order to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Court declines to enter default
judgment against Koons at this time. This is consistent with a prior ruling in the Central District
involving the Plaintiff, which the AW Defendants cited in their Response. Cincinnati Insurance

2

Co. v. Heitbrink, No. 3:15-CV-03352, 2017 WL 349312, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing,
inter alia, Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co. v. Pate, 819 F.2d 806, 812 (7th Cir. 1987); VLM Food
Trading Int’l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247, 256 n.6 (7th Cir. 2016)). These cases make
clear that it is within the Court’s discretion to delay ruling on an entry of default judgment until
the matter has otherwise been fully resolved. In fact, the Plaintiff acknowledges the same. (D. 43
at pg. 9); (D. 48 at pg. 4). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice, with
leave to refile when the matter against the remaining Defendants has been resolved.
For the reasons stated, supra, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Koons
(D. 42) is DENIED. The entry of default against Koons remains in effect. The Plaintiff may renew
its Motion for Default Judgment when the issues against the AW Defendants have reached a
resolution.
It is so ordered.
Entered on February 22, 2018

s/_James E. Shadid_
James E. Shadid
U.S. Chief District Judge

3