American Safety Casualty Insurance Company v. City of Waukegan, Illinois

Filing 911

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/29/2011.(tsa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)
CITY OF WAUKEGAN,
)
)
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------- )
)
CITY OF WAUKEGAN,
)
)
Counter-Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, CERTAIN
)
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON, )
NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANIES,
)
WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
)
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, S.
)
ALEJANDRO DOMINGUEZ, AND PAUL
HENDLEY,
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
)

Case No. 07 C 1990
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
I.

CITY’S RULE 60(a) MOTION
Plaintiff City of Waukegan (“Waukegan or “the City”) has moved to correct an omission in

the Court’s March 3, 2011 (Doc. 811) and July 6, 2011 (Doc. 884) orders entering final judgment
in this case. As the City points out, in its March 3, 2011 Opinion the Court awarded $1,079,296.90
to the City from defendant American Safety Casualty Insurance Company (“American Safety”) as

breach of contract damages as a result of American Safety’s failure to defend the City in the
underlying Dominguez litigation. (See Doc. 811 at 48.) Addressing only the amounts in dispute
after the March 3, 2011 Opinion, the Court did not address that award in the July 6, 2011 Opinion.
To address the City’s motion and make clear the final judgment as against American Safety
and Interstate Indemnity Company (“Interstate”) in this case, the Court summarizes the damages as
follows:
Category

Responsible Party

Amount

Self-Insurance Retention

Waukegan

$100,000

American Safety policy limits

American Safety

$1,000,000

Interstate’s excess layer

Interstate

$7,963,000

American Safety’s pro rata share of
interest on judgment

American Safety

$138,570.12

Interstate’s pro rata share of
interest on judgment

Interstate

$1,103, 434.97

Dominguez’s attorney’s fees in

American Safety

$1,067,637.86

Dominguez’s costs on appeal

American Safety

$13,757.95

Interest on Dominguez’s

American Safety

$10,794.49

American Safety

$1,079, 296.29

underlying suit and appeal

attorney’s fees
City’s fees and costs for the defense
of the underlying Dominguez action

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 58 and as laid out in the Court’s March 3, 2011 and July 6,
2011 Opinions, the Court enters judgment in favor of Waukegan and against American Safety for
$3,310,057.32, the sum of the items American Safety is responsible for as shown in the table above.
The Court also enters judgment in favor of Waukegan and against Interstate for $9,066,434.97, the
sum of the items noted above. Pursuant to Rule 58 and as described in the Court’s March 30, 2009

and March 3, 2011 Opinions, the Court enters final judgment against Waukegan and in favor of the
other carriers, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, Northfield Insurance Companies, Westport
Insurance Corporation (formerly Coregis Insurance Organizations), and Scottsdale Insurance
Company.
The City is also entitled to its attorney’s fees from American Safety for the current suit with
respect to its counterclaims against American Safety as laid out in the March 3, 2011 Opinion, to be
determined by Magistrate Judge Finnegan. Judge Finnegan will also determine what costs will be
awarded to the City and the prevailing insurance companies per the bills of costs filed by the
prevailing parties. These amounts will be entered as separate judgments.
II.

NORTHFIELD’S MOTION TO CLARIFY
Defendant Northfield Insurance Company (“Northfield”), one of the prevailing insurance

companies per the March 3, 2011 Opinion, filed a motion to clarify to the parties whether the Court
has referred all the bills of costs to Judge Finnegan (Doc. 891). The Court grants Northfield’s
motion and clarifies that (1) the case remains closed because the Court has entered final judgment;
and (2) the Court intended to refer to Judge Finnegan all the parties’ bills of costs, as well the City’s
petition for attorney’s fees as allowed by the March 3, 2011 Opinion, so that all of those items may
be considered by one judge.

________________________________________
Virginia M. Kendall
United States District Court Judge
Northern District of Illinois
Date: July 29, 2011