Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Heitbrink et al
Filing
26
OPINION: Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Default Judgment (d/e 25 ) against Defendant Robert Heitbrink, which the Court construes as a Motion for Default Judgment, is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to refile when all claims involving all parties have been resolved. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/23/2017. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 24 January, 2017 03:07:23 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HEITBRINK, CONNIE
MCELHANEY, individually and
as special administrator of
THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM
MCELHANEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:15-CV-03352
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Cincinnati
Insurance Company’s Brief in Support of Its Motion for Default
Judgment (d/e 25) against Defendant Robert Heitbrink, which the
Court construes as a Motion for Default Judgment. Because entry
of a default judgment against Mr. Heitbrink might result in
inconsistent or contradictory judgments, the Motion is DENIED
without prejudice and with leave to refile when the claims involving
the remaining defendant have been resolved.
Page 1 of 8
I. BACKGROUND
In December 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment (d/e 1) to determine Plaintiff’s obligations, if any, under
policies of insurance that Plaintiff issued to Mr. Heitbrink. Plaintiff
brought the suit against Mr. Heitbrink and Defendant Connie
McElhaney, individually and as special administrator of the estate
of William McElhaney.
The dispute concerns Mr. Heitbrink’s request for insurance
coverage with respect to a lawsuit filed against him by Ms.
McElhaney, individually and as special administrator of the estate
of William McElhaney. See McElhaney v. Heitbrink, Morgan
County Circuit Court, Case No. 2015-L-25 (the “Underlying
Lawsuit”). In the Underlying Lawsuit, Ms. McElhaney seeks
damages pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, the Illinois
Survival Statute, and the Illinois Rights of Married Persons Act.
Ms. McElhaney alleges that Mr. Heitbrink attacked and assaulted
William McElhaney, resulting in Mr. McElhaney’s death.
On April 20, 2016, service of Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment
action was effectuated on Mr. Heitbrink. See d/e 8. Mr. Heitbrink,
Page 2 of 8
who is currently incarcerated, has failed to appear, answer, or
otherwise plead to the complaint.
On August 10, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins issued an Order of Default of Robert Heitbrink
(d/e 19) and directed Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment
within 14 days. On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Default Judgment against Mr. Heitbrink.
On September 28, 2016, this Court denied the motion for
default judgment with leave to refile, noting that Plaintiff did not
allege its principal place of business or the citizenship (as opposed
to the residence) of the Defendants. The Court directed Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of the
parties in this action.
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed its amended complaint
(d/e 22) properly alleging the citizenship of the parties in this
action. On October 26, 2016, Ms. McElhaney filed an answer to
the amended complaint. On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed its
Brief in Support of Its Motion for Default Judgment, which the
Court is construing as a motion for default judgment.
Page 3 of 8
II. JURISDICTION
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity exists between the parties.
Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business
in Ohio. Am. Compl. ¶ 2 (d/e 22). Mr. Heitbrink is a citizen of
Illinois. Id. ¶ 3. Ms. McElhaney is a citizen of South Carolina both
individually and as the legal representative of Mr. McElhaney’s
estate. Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.
In addition, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
exclusive of interest and costs. In a declaratory judgment action,
“the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object
of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm’n, 432 U.S.
333, 347 (1977). The object of the litigation is the pecuniary result
that would flow to the plaintiff or the defendant from the court
granting the declaratory judgment. America’s MoneyLine, Inc. v.
Coleman, 360 F.3d 762, 786 (7th Cir. 2004). In this case, the
value of the Underlying Lawsuit and the cost of defending the
Underlying Lawsuit count toward the jurisdictional amount. See
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 539-40 (7th Cir.
2006); Midland Mgmt. Co. v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp., 132 F. Supp.3d
Page 4 of 8
1014, 1020 (N.D. Ill. 2015). In the Underlying Lawsuit, Ms.
McElhaney seeks in excess of $50,0001 for damages arising out of
Mr. McElhaney’s death. Moreover, defense costs in the Underlying
Lawsuit could easily exceed $25,000. Therefore, the Court finds
the amount-in-controversy requirement satisfied. See Back
Doctors Ltd. v. Metro. Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827, 830
(7th Cir. 2011) (“unless recovery of an amount exceeding the
jurisdictional minimum is legally impossible, the case belongs in
federal court”).
Because the parties are diverse and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, this Court has jurisdiction.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Mr. Heitbrink.
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order finding that the
insurance policies issued by Plaintiff to Mr. Heitbrink provide no
coverage to him in connection with the Underlying Lawsuit and to
Ms. McElhaney likely listed damages as being “in excess of $50,000” to
enable her to file the case as a Law Division case in state court. See 735 ILCS
5/2-604 (providing that “no ad damnum may be pleaded except to the
minimum extent necessary to comply with the circuit rules of assignment
where the claim is filed”).
1
Page 5 of 8
find that Plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify Mr. Heitbrink
with respect to the Underlying Lawsuit.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice and with leave
to refile when the matter has been resolved against all of the
defendants. As noted above, Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory
judgment against Ms. McElhaney, individually and as special
administrator of the Estate of William McElhaney. Ms. McElhaney
has answered the complaint, and an actual controversy exists
between Plaintiff and Ms. McElhaney. See Md. Cas. Co. v. Pacific
Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 274 (1941) (holding that in a
declaratory judgment action, an actual controversy exists between
the insurer and the injured party, even though the injured party is
not a party to the insurance contract); see also Hawkeye-Sec. Ins.
Co. v. Schulte, 302 F.2d 174, 177 (7th Cir. 1962) (same) (citing
Md. Cas. Co., 312 U.S. 270).
If Ms. McElhaney is successful on the merits, the default
judgment against Mr. Heitbrink would be logically inconsistent.
That is, the Court would have found both that Plaintiff has a duty
to defend and indemnify under the terms of the insurance policy
and does not have a duty to defend and indemnify under the terms
Page 6 of 8
of the insurance policy. To avoid this possibility, the Court will not
enter a default judgment against Mr. Heitbrink at this time. See
Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co. v. Pate, 819 F.2d 806, 812 (7th Cir.
1987) (in a multi-defendant action, default judgment should not be
entered against one defendant where doing so might result in
logically inconsistent or contradictory judgments); see also, e.g.,
VLM Food Trading Int’l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co., 811 F.3d 247, 256
n. 6 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing cases for the proposition that a default
judgment should not be entered against one defendant until the
matter has been resolved against all of the defendants when, for
example, defendants are jointly liable); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. v. Jackson, 736 F. Supp. 958, 961-62 (S.D. Ind. 1990) (setting
aside the non-final default judgment and postponing a final ruling
until the merits of the declaratory judgment case were adjudicated
as to all of the defendants).
The entry of default remains in effect. Plaintiff may renew its
motion for default judgment when the issues are finally resolved
against Ms. McElhaney, individually and as special administrator
of the estate of William McElhaney.
Page 7 of 8
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Its
Motion for Default Judgment (d/e 25) against Defendant Robert
Heitbrink, which the Court construes as a Motion for Default
Judgment, is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to refile
when all claims involving all parties have been resolved.
ENTER: January 23, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
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?