THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY v. GLOBAL CARAVAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al

Filing 112

ENTRY ON FINAL JUDGMENT - Accordingly, summary judgment is granted on behalf of Cincinnati with respect to all of the Defendants' claims. Entry on Final Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) will be made in a separate order. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/29/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL CARAVAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
C.H. DOUGLAS & GRAY, LLC,
RED WING CAPITAL, LLC,
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, HUSHENG DING,
CHRIS TZENG, KYLE FANG, THOMAS
GRAY, DORIS ROBERTS, and CHARLES
HOEFER, JR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01643-TWP-DML

ENTRY ON FINAL JUDGMENT
On August 8, 2016 the Court issued its Entry on the parties’ cross motions for
summary judgment. (Filing No. 108). The Court concluded that the applicable insurance policy
does not require a defense by Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati”). Noting that the
indemnity issue in this action was stayed and not subject to the partial summary judgment motions,
the Court granted Cincinnati’s motion for partial summary judgment, (Filing No. 81), and denied
the Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Filing No. 74). In its Entry, the Court
observed that the issue of indemnity may no longer be viable given its decision on the issue to
defend, because if there is no duty to defend, there can be no duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Jim
Barna, 791 N.E.2d at 823; Pekin Ins. Co. v. Barber, No. 1:09-cv-0521-TAB-TWP, 2011 WL
1258063, *3 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2011) (Filing No. 108 at 14-15). The Court noted that the only
remaining claim in this case is the Defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract, a claim that
appears factually related to the issues addressed in this Entry. (Id.)

The parties have conferred as they were instructed by the Court. Although Defendants
respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision on the duty to defend, they are in agreement that,
subject to a final determination on appeal as to the correctness of the Court’s Order on the duty to
defend, there are no issues remaining for trial, therefore an entry of final judgment on all issues is
proper. (Filing No. 111). The Defendants’ expectation is to initiate an appeal of the Court’s ruling
and continue to reserve their right to seek all available forms of relief, including reinstatement of
their claims as appropriate, relating to the duty to defend, indemnity, or their breach of contract
(Count II) or bad faith (Count III) claims.
Accordingly, summary judgment is granted on behalf of Cincinnati with respect to all of
the Defendants’ claims. Entry on Final Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) will be made
in a separate order.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/29/2016

2

DISTRIBUTION:
Douglas H. Fisher
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY (LAW OFFICES)
[e-mail]
James J. Hutton
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY (LAW OFFICES)
[e-mail]
S. Andrew Burns
COX SARGEANT & BURNS PC
[e-mail]
Charles Russell Cox
COX, SARGEANT & BURNS, P.C.
[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Jonathan P. Emenhiser
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Shelley M. Jackson
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
April C. Tarvin
STAFF COUNSEL OF THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY
[e-mail]
David S. Wirth
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES
[e-mail]

3