The Travelers Indemnity Company et al v. Forrest County et al
Filing
502
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' 424 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court grants the motion as to its previous ruling that Swiss RE International, previously Zurich Specialties London Limited, has no duty to defend or indemnify the Bivens Defendants against the claims asserted by the Bivens Plaintiffs in the underlying case. The Court denies the motion in all other respects. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on June 22, 2016 (dsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY, et al.
V.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-22-KS-MTP
FORREST COUNTY, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Motion for Reconsideration [424] filed by Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a liability insurance coverage case arising from a civil rights lawsuit. The
Court provided an extensive discussion of the underlying facts in its Memorandum
Opinion and Order of March 30, 2015, in Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13-CV-8-KSMTP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40602 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2015), ECF No. 189. After the
Bivens Plaintiffs filed suit,1 several insurance companies (collectively, “Travelers”) filed
their own case seeking a declaratory judgment that they had no duty under numerous
liability policies issued to Forrest County to defend or indemnify the Bivens Defendants
against the claims asserted in the underlying suit.
The Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants filed counterclaims against Travelers and
1
Throughout this opinion, the Court will refer to the underlying plaintiffs –
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Bivens, Ruffin, Dixon, Smith, and Strong – as the
Bivens Plaintiffs, and it will refer to the underlying defendants –
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Forrest County, City of Hattiesburg, Howell,
Walters, Hopstein, Hart, Martin, Brown, Taylor, Erwin, Moulds, James, and Clark
– as the Bivens Defendants.
third-party claims against several other insurance companies, including Zurich
Specialties London, Ltd., Steadfast Insurance Company, and Gemini Insurance
Company.
On February 16, 2016, the Court granted a Motion for Judgement on the
Pleadings [134] filed by Swiss RE International, previously Zurich Specialties London
Limited (“ZSLL”) and Gemini Insurance Company, and it also granted a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [223] filed by Steadfast Insurance Company. See Travelers
Indem. Co. v. Forrest County, No. 2:14-CV-22-KS-MTP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18288
(S.D. Miss. Feb. 16, 2016), ECF No. 370. The Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a
Motion for Reconsideration [424] of that ruling.
II. DISCUSSION
The Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the Court should reconsider its
prior order because 1) it erred in holding that specific factual allegations of
independent acts or omissions constituting “wrongful acts” during the relevant policy
periods were required to trigger coverage, and 2) that the underlying case’s Third
Amended Complaint2 contains specific allegations of “wrongful acts” which occurred
during the applicable policy periods.
“[A]ny order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights
2
See Third Amended Complaint, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13-CV-8-KSMTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
2
and liabilities.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); see also Saqui v. Pride Cent. Am. LLC, 595 F.3d
206, 210 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court is “free to reconsider and reverse its decision for
any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening
change in or clarification of the substantive law.” Saqui, 595 F.3d at 210-11.
A.
Specific Factual Allegations of a Wrongful Act or Omission
First, the Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants argues that the Court erred by
holding that the Bivens Plaintiffs did not allege any specific “wrongful acts,” as defined
by the applicable policies, during the applicable policy periods. The Court held that the
Bivens Plaintiffs’ generalized, conclusory allegation that none of the Bivens Defendants
came forward with the truth after conviction was not sufficient to trigger the insurers’
duty to defendant under the applicable policies. Travelers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
18288 at *20-*22. Rather, the Court held that the underlying complaint must include
specific allegations of independent acts or omissions during the applicable policy
periods to trigger coverage under the relevant policies. Id. at *21.
The Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants contend that the Court imposed a
“heightened pleading standard” on them. The Court disagrees, for the same reasons
and pursuant to the same authorities previously cited. Id. at *21-*22. The Bivens
Plaintiffs and Defendants also argue that the Court judicially modified the policies to
remove their coverage of omissions. This is not true. The Court specifically held that
“the Bivens Plaintiffs did not allege any specific actions or omissions by the Bivens
Defendants during the applicable policy periods,” and, therefore, they “did not allege
any ‘wrongful acts’ occurring during the policy periods.” Id. at *22 (emphasis added).
3
B.
The Third Amended Complaint
Next, the Bivens Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the Third Amended
Complaint in the underlying case includes specific allegations of “wrongful acts”
triggering coverage under the applicable policies. Specifically, the Third Amended
Complaint includes the following allegations:
•
The Bivens Plaintiffs allege that the Bivens Defendants failed to
come forward with exculpatory evidence in response to Dixon’s
Motion for a Reduction of Sentence filed on October 10, 1985, and
that the motion was denied on October 15, 1985, because the
Bivens Defendants failed to come forward.3
•
The Bivens Plaintiffs allege that the Bivens Defendants failed to
come forward with exculpatory evidence in response to Dixon’s
Motion for Post-Conviction Relief filed on September 3, 1993, and
that the motion was denied on March 22, 1994, because the Bivens
Defendants failed to come forward.4
•
The Bivens Plaintiffs allege that the Bivens Defendants failed to
come forward with exculpatory evidence in response to Ruffin’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on June 4, 1996, and that
the petition was denied on February 28, 1997, because the Bivens
Defendants failed to come forward.5
•
The Bivens Plaintiffs allege that the Bivens Defendants failed to
come forward with exculpatory evidence at various early release
proceedings, and that they were denied early release because the
Bivens Defendants failed to come forward. Specifically, they allege
that Bivens was up for work release on or around June 3, 1998,
3
See Third Amended Complaint at 30, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13-CV8-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
4
See Third Amended Complaint at 31-32, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13CV-8-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
5
See Third Amended Complaint at 32-33, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13CV-8-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
4
and that he was up for parole on October 23, 1990; September 8,
1993; July 29, 1998; and May 24, 2001. They allege that Dixon
came up for parole on August 15, 1991; July 13, 1993; May 20,
1997; August 27, 1997; April 24, 2001; February 14, 2006; and
December 9, 2009. Finally, they allege that Ruffin came up for
parole on May 10, 1990; April 7, 1993; February 25, 1998; and May
23, 2001.6
•
Finally, the Bivens Plaintiffs allege that District Attorney Glen
White wrote a letter to the members of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections Parole Board on January 20, 1998, arguing that
Ruffin should not be released from prison, and that Ruffin was
denied parole because of the letter.7
2.
Steadfast and Gemini Policies
The Law Enforcement Liability Insurance policy [134-4] issued by Gemini
Insurance Company was effective from November 13, 2004, through November 13,
2005. Therefore, none of the alleged acts or omissions listed above occurred during the
Gemini policy’s period of coverage. Likewise, the Steadfast policies [223-1, 223-2] were
effective from November 13, 2002, through November 13, 2004, and none of the alleged
wrongful acts listed above occurred during their periods of coverage. Accordingly, the
Court’s earlier ruling regarding Steadfast and Gemini remains undisturbed. As the
Bivens Plaintiffs alleged no “wrongful acts” during the applicable policy periods,
neither Steadfast nor Gemini has a duty to defend the Bivens Defendants against the
Bivens Plaintiffs’ claims, and because there is no duty to defend, there can be no duty
6
See Third Amended Complaint at 33, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13-CV8-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
7
See Third Amended Complaint at 35-36, Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13CV-8-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2016), ECF No. 307.
5
to indemnify. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Neshoba County Fair Ass’n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 344, 346
n. 1 (S.D. Miss. 2006); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Lexington Relocation Servs., LLC, No.
1:12-CV-181-SA-DAS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38308, at *41 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 24, 2014);
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Anderson, No. 1:11-CV-304-KS-JMR, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 57837, at *17 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 23, 2014).
2.
ZSLL Policies
ZSLL issued two policies to the Forrest County Sheriff’s Department – Policy
No. ZSL990086 [134-1], effective from November 13, 2000, to November 13, 2001; and
Policy No. NSL010067 [134-2], effective from November 13, 2001, to November 13,
2002. Both policies had the same substantive provisions [134-3]. They generally
provide: “The Company will pay on behalf of the ‘insured(s)’ all ‘damages’ resulting
from a ‘wrongful act(s)’ which arise out of the law enforcement activities. The ‘wrongful
act(s)’ must occur during the policy period . . . .” The policies define a “wrongful act” as
“an actual or alleged error or omission, negligent act, neglect or breach of duty by the
‘insured’ while conducting law enforcement activities, which result[s] in . . . ‘Personal
Injury.’” The definition of “Personal Injury” includes “Assault and/or battery;” “False
arrest, detention or imprisonment, or malicious prosecution;” “Humiliation or mental
distress;” and the “Violation of civil rights or discrimination protected under 42 U.S.C.
1981 et sequentia or State Law.” Therefore, in general terms, ZSLL is obligated to pay
all damages resulting from an actual or alleged error or omission, negligent act, or
breach of duty during the policy period by the Bivens Defendants employed by Forrest
County while they were conducting law enforcement activities which resulted in
6
assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, violation of civil rights protected
under federal or state law, humiliation, and/or mental distress.
The Bivens Plaintiffs alleged that the Bivens Defendants failed to come forward
with exculpatory evidence at various early release proceedings, including three parole
hearings during the ZSLL policy periods. Specifically, the Bivens Plaintiffs alleged that
the Bivens Defendants failed to come forward with the truth at Bivens’ parole hearing
on May 24, 2001, Dixon’s parole hearing on April 24, 2001, and Ruffin’s parole hearing
on May 23, 2001.
“[A]n insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the allegations of the complaint
reasonably bring a claim within the coverage of its policy.” Carl E. Woodward, LLC v.
Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Baker Donelson
Bearman & Caldwell, P.C. v. Muirhead, 920 So. 2d 440, 451 (Miss. 2006)) (punctuation
omitted). Here, the policies provide coverage for “wrongful acts” occurring during the
policy periods, and the definition of “wrongful acts” includes omissions and/or breaches
of duty while conducting law enforcement activities which result in false imprisonment
or the violation of civil rights protected under federal and state law. The Bivens
Defendants’ alleged failure to come forward with the truth at specific parole hearings
during the policy period is an omission and/or breach of duty8 that allegedly caused the
8
Mississippi law provides: “It shall be the duty of any judge, district attorney,
county attorney, police officer, or other public official of the state, having
information with reference to any person eligible for parole, to send such
information as may be in his possession or under his control to the board, in
writing, upon request of any member of employee thereof.” MISS. CODE ANN. § 47-719.
7
Bivens Plaintiffs’ continued false imprisonment and/or the violation of their rights
under federal and state law. Accordingly, the Bivens Plaintiffs’ allegation that the
Bivens Defendants failed to come forward with the truth at specific parole hearings
during the ZSLL policy periods is sufficient to trigger ZSLL’s duty to defend its insured
against the Bivens Plaintiffs’ claims for damages resulting from the alleged “wrongful
acts.”
For these reasons, the Court withdraws its previous opinion insofar as it held
that ZSLL has no duty to defend or indemnify the Bivens Defendants against the
Bivens Plaintiffs in this case. At present, it is not necessary for the Court to determine
when ZSLL’s duty to defend arose. This question was neither squarely presented in the
present motion nor sufficiently briefed, and, therefore, the Court will not address it.
Likewise, the Court declines to address the various defenses to coverage asserted by
ZSLL in its Motion for Summary Judgment [416], such as the application of certain
policy exclusions or the Bivens Defendants’ purported failure to provide notice of the
Bivens Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court will address those arguments when it addresses
ZSLL’s Motion for Summary Judgment [416] in a later opinion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion for
Reconsideration [424] filed by Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court
grants the motion as to its previous ruling that Swiss RE International, previously
Zurich Specialties London Limited has no duty to defend or indemnify the Bivens
Defendants against the claims asserted by the Bivens Plaintiffs in the underlying case.
8
The Court denies the motion in all other respects.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 22nd day of June, 2016.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?