Eagle, Inc. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company et al
Filing
370
ORDER & REASONS: ORDERED that 364 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (cml)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EAGLE, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-6217
ONEBEACON AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
SECTION: "A" (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint (Rec. Doc. 364) filed by defendants and third-party defendants TIG
Insurance Company (“TIG”) and United States Fire Insurance Co. (“U.S. Fire”). Plaintiff
Eagle, Inc. opposes the motion. The motion, noticed for submission on August 24, 2016,
is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff Eagle, Inc. filed this action against several insurance companies seeking
a declaratory judgment regarding the obligations of the insurance companies to provide
defense and indemnity in numerous asbestos cases deriving from exposure that
occurred in the 1950s through the 1980s. Eagle, Inc. is the successor company to Eagle
Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc., which was in the business of selling, installing, and
removing asbestos-containing products at various sites from approximately 1937 until
sometime in the 1980s. Since the inception of this litigation the defendant insurers have
complained that Eagle’s claims suffer from a lack of detail as to claimants, lawsuits,
settlements, defense costs, and every other kind of claim-specific fact necessary to
Page 1 of 3
trigger coverage under the policies.
Another theme that has permeated this litigation is Defendants’ suggestion that
this litigation is merely an investment opportunity for non-party Raymond Tellini, a
businessman and investor who first became involved with Eagle in December 2012 — a
time when Eagle had no ongoing operations. According to Defendants, Tellini has been
in the business of acquiring businesses whose sole assets consist of insurance policies
that allegedly provide coverage for the businesses’ asbestos liabilities. Once the insurers
settle out, Defendants claim that Tellini uses his other corporate entities to funnel the
settlement proceeds to himself as income.
Movants TIG and U.S. Fire have submitted a plethora of exhibits offered to
support their contention that Tellini is the alter ego of Eagle, Inc., and its corporate owner
Eagle Acquisitions, Inc. From there, Movants argue that the Second Amended
Complaint, which brought them into this litigation, should be dismissed because without
Tellini’s joinder as a plaintiff in this case, they run the risk of incurring multiple or
inconsistent obligations with respect to the insurance coverage provided to Eagle.
The Court finds that Eagle, Inc.’s opposition memorandum states well the non
sequitur implicit in Movants’ argument. Even if Tellini is the alter ego of Eagle, Inc. such
that he would now have standing as a plaintiff to pursue a declaratory judgment action
against Eagle’s insurers — a specious proposition in and of itself — the Court fails to
appreciate how Tellini’s joinder as a plaintiff ameliorates Movants’ valid concerns
regarding multiple or inconsistent obligations with respect to the insurance policies
Page 2 of 3
provided to Eagle. Moreover, Tellini’s absence as a plaintiff does not prevent the Court
from according complete relief among the existing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
19(a)(1)(A).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
(Rec. Doc. 364) filed by defendants and third-party defendants TIG Insurance Company
and United States Fire Insurance Co. is DENIED.
September 27, 2016
__________________________________
JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
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?