ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 1186

OPINION and ORDER denying #1136 Motion for final judgment. The court DENIES Lamorak's motion for final judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), #1136 , with leave to refile following the court's ruling on the other defendants' summary judgment motions. Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr on 12/19/2018. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY;
ELI LILLY DO BRASIL, LTDA.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) Case No. 1:13-CV-1770 RLM-TAB
v.
)
)
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
OPINION and ORDER
Defendant Commercial Union Insurance Company (now know as, and
referred to here as, Lamorak Insurance Company) moves for final judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the June 18, 2018, opinion
and order granting its motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 1136]. For the
following reasons, the motion is denied.
Rule 54(b) “is not intended to provide an option to the district court to
certify issues for interlocutory appeal,” but rather “allows appeal without delay
of claims that are truly separate and distinct from those that remain pending.”
Lottie v. W. Am. Ins. Co., of Ohio Cas. Grp. of Ins. Companies, 408 F.3d 935,
939 (7th Cir. 2005). The Rule provides that a district court “may direct entry of
a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if
the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b). Absent such a determination, “the partial resolution of the case
must await a true final judgment—one that resolves all claims of all parties.”

Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 847 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in
orginal).
The court of appeals requires that “Rule 54(b) be employed only when the
subjects of the partial judgment do not overlap with those ongoing in the district
court.” Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bobst Grp. USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922, 924 (7th
Cir. 2004). This rule “spare(s) the court of appeals from having to keep relearning
the facts of a case on successive appeals.” Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v.
Marseilles Land & Water Co., 518 F.3d 459, 464 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Indiana
Harbor Belt R. Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 860 F.2d 1441, 1444 (7th Cir. 1988)).
There is a just reason for delay in this case: granting Lamorak’s motion
could lead to piecemeal appeals because there is significant factual overlap
between the claims against Lamorak and the other defendants in this case. Lilly
sued a number of its insurers, including Lamorak, seeking coverage for claims
arising out of lawsuits relating to a facility Lilly Brasil operated in South America.
The underlying Brazilian litigation and a manufacturing agreement between Eli
Lilly and Lilly Brasil are central to the claims against Lamorak and the claims
that remain pending against the other defendants.
Lamorak argues it has already endured many years of expensive litigation
in this matter, believes it will take many more years for the other parties to fully
litigate their claims, and contends it would be grossly unjust to force it to remain
in the case—and incur further expense—until all claims against all parties are
adjudicated. Lamorak might be right that an extended delay in resolution of
Lilly’s claims against the other defendants could justify entry of final judgment
2

as to Lamorak. But, as Lilly notes in its response, the other defendants have
moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims against them. [See Doc.
Nos. 1144, 1149]. The court expresses no opinion about the merits of those
summary judgment motions, which aren’t fully briefed, but the case’s current
posture weighs against granting Lamorak’s 54(b) motion.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Lamorak’s motion for final judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), [Doc. No. 1136], with leave to
refile following the court’s ruling on the other defendants’ summary judgment
motions.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

December 19, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court

Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel of record via CM/ECF

3