Nei v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Bifurcate Count One and Stay Remaining Counts. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 12/13/2017. (NOS)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

DEC 13 2017
Cieri<, U.S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 17-137-M-DWM

STEVENNEI,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
THE TRAVELERS HOME AND .
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
and RELATED TRAVELERS
COMPANIES,
Defendants.

Defendant Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company ("Travelers")
seeks to bifurcate claims brought by Plaintiff Steven Nei ("Nei") arising out of a
2015 motor vehicle accident. In August 2017, Nei sued Travelers, seeking
declaratory relief related to the stacking of his benefits under his underinsured and
medical coverage (Count I). (See Doc. 4.) Nei also alleges Travelers violated its
statutory (Count II) and common law (Count III) obligations as his insurance
carrier and seeks punitive damages (Count IV). (Id.) Travelers moves to bifurcate
Count I and stay the remaining counts. (Doc. 9.) That motion is denied.
Pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[f]or

1

convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may
order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims,
counterclaims, or third-party claims." 1 As the moving party, Travelers has the
burden of proving that "bifurcation is warranted." Frost v. BNSF Railway Co.,
218 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1130 (D. Mont. 2016).
Disposition of the present motion is guided by Judge Watters' recent
decision in Routh v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. ofAm., CV 17-42-BLG-SPW, Doc.
17, at 2-5 (D. Mont. Sept. 14, 2017). There, Travelers similarly sought to
bifurcate its insured's claim for uninsured motorist coverage from its bad faith
claims. Judge Watters determined that bifurcation was not appropriate because the
"concern that an insurer may suffer prejudice when it is forced to simultaneously
defend bad faith in its handling of the underlying accident and liability for the
underlying accident," is not at issue when "liability is not a contested issue."

Routh, at 6 (citing Fode v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 719 P.2d 414 (Mont. 1986) and
Palmer by Diacon v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 861 P.2d 895 (Mont. 1993)). Judge
1

Consistent with this rule, Montana law allows for actions brought under
§ 33-18-242, Mont. Code Ann., to be bifurcated "where justice so requires." § 3318-242(6)(a). See Malta Pub. Sch. Dist. A & 14 v. Mont. Seventeenth Jud. Dist.
Ct. , Phillips Cnty., 938 P.2d 1335, 1338 (Mont. 1997) (citing considerations of
convenience, fairness to the parties, and the interests of judicial economy). Rule
42(b) applies here. See Routh v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. ofAm., CV 17-42-BLGSPW, Doc. 17, at 2-5 (D. Mont. Sept. 14, 2017) (discussing the governing law).
2

Watters further held that judicial economy and convenience did not support
bifurcation, because the question of whether the insured suffered physical injury
was also relevant to the insured's bad faith claim and resolution of the two claims
would depend on similar evidence and witnesses. Id. at 7.
Here, as in Routh, Travelers does not dispute "that fault for the motor
vehicle accident at issue rests with the driver of the other vehicle." (Ans., Doc. 8
at ilil 4, 16.) Given that Routh involved the same defendant, the same lawyers, and
the same issues, it is curious that Travelers did not mention it in its briefing. Yet,
for the same reasons discussed in Routh, bifurcation is not appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Travelers' motion (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (requiring the Court and parties construe, administer,

and employ the rules to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action and proceeding").
~

Dated this Ji_ day of December, 2017.

Donald W. Mol oy, District Judge
United States D trict Court
\

3

...._