Assurance Company of America et al v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Filing
114
ORDER Denying 82 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment No. 1, Denying without Prejudice 83 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2, Granting 85 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Sixth Cause of Action, Granting 86 MO TION for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Thirty-Ninth Cause of Action, and Granting 87 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Forty-Fifth Cause of Action. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/28/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, et
al.,
2:09-CV-1182 JCM (PAL)
8
Plaintiffs,
9
10
v.
11
NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INS.
CO.,
12
Defendant.
13
14
15
ORDER
16
Presently before the court is plaintiffs Assurance Company of America, Maryland Casualty
17
Company, Northern Insurance Company of New York, Steadfast Insurance Company, Zurich
18
American Insurance Company, and Zurich Specialities of London’s motion for partial summary
19
judgment number one. (Doc. #82). Defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance Company has
20
responded (doc. #93), and plaintiffs have replied (doc. #97).
21
Also before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment number two. (Doc.
22
#83). The defendant has objected to the motion (doc. #92) and responded to the motion (doc. #94).
23
The plaintiffs have replied. (Doc. #98).
24
Also before the court is defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’
25
sixth claim for relief. (Doc. #85). Plaintiffs have responded (doc. #91), and defendant has replied
26
(doc. #103).
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Also before the court is defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’
1
thirty-ninth claim for relief. (Doc. #86). Plaintiffs have responded (doc. #91), and the defendant has
2
replied (doc. #103),
3
Finally before the court is defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’
4
forty-fifth claim for relief. (Doc. #87). Plaintiffs have responded (doc. #91), and the defendant has
5
replied. (Doc. #103).
6
DISCUSSION
7
Plaintiff insurance companies filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief and monetary
8
damages against defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance Company alleging that National Fire
9
improperly denied the parties’ mutual insureds a defense in several underlying Nevada state cases.
10
Each claim herein is premised on the assumption that the defendant had an obligation to defend in
11
one of the underlying actions, the denial of which caused plaintiffs to incur sums in excess of their
12
equitable share of the defense fees and costs. From these facts, the parties have filed five motions
13
for summary judgment, which are the subject of the instant order.
14
Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the
15
nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
16
judgment as a matter of law. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV. P.
17
56(c). The moving party bears the burden of presenting authenticated evidence to demonstrate the
18
absence of any genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
19
(1986); see Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (articulating the standard for
20
authentication of evidence on a motion for summary judgement).
21
I.
Plaintiffs’ First Motion For Summary Judgment Against Defendant National Fire
22
Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment requests a declaration that defendant National
23
Fire had a duty to defend in underlying the “Amber Ridge” action, which is the basis of plaintiffs’
24
seventh claim for relief. The Amber Ridge litigation resulted from construction defects related to the
25
Amber Ridge condos; the complaint in which implicated Johnson Electric, the parties’ mutual
26
insured. Johnson Electric requested that National Fire tender a defense, but National Fire responded
27
with a nineteen-page declination letter, explaining that the case was not covered under the benefits
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
articulated in National Fire’s policy.
2
3
One of the grounds for disclaiming coverage cited by National Fire in the declination letter
is an exclusion based on the existence of a consolidated wrap-up insurance program:
4
[This policy] does not apply to . . . property damage arising out of either your
ongoing operations or operations included within the “products completed operations
hazard” at the location described in the schedule of this endorsement as a
consolidated (wrap-up) insurance program has been provided. . . .
5
6
7
(Plaintiff’s appendix, exhibit #20, NF0014000). The “endorsement” includes Westmark Homes, the
8
party for whom Johnson Electric performed the disputed work. The court does not find this to be an
9
“escape clause,” which would be void as against public policy, but rather a bargained-for exclusion
10
where secondary insurance is already in place. This exclusion was mentioned in the declination letter
11
as a basis for denying coverage. (See plaintiff’s appendix, exhibit #108 at NF005945) (“Policy
12
72LPS000632 contains an Exclusion-Consolidated (Wrap UP) Insurance Programs Endorsement,
13
Form M-5222 (01/2006). . . .”).
14
The court finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether this exclusion
15
applies to bar coverage. The dispute concerns the application of the wrap-up exclusion, and whether
16
the occurrence/damage at issue in Amber Ridge arouse out of either “ongoing operations” or
17
“operations included within the ‘products completed operations hazard’” at the Westmark location,
18
such that the endorsement excludes coverage. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is
19
denied.
20
II.
Plaintiffs’ Second Motion For Summary Judgment Against National Fire
21
In this motion, plaintiffs lump nearly half of the claims in the complaint together with only
22
four pages of explanatory factual background. As defendant notes, the plaintiffs are essentially
23
asking the court to distill four-thousand pages of evidence to conclude, as a matter of law, that
24
plaintiffs are entitled to prevail on this claim. Accordingly, the court declines to grant the motion at
25
this time, and it is denied without prejudice.
26
III.
27
Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On the Sixth Claim
Plaintiff’s sixth claim for relief seeks a declaration that the defendant had a duty to defend
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
in the Allen action, a construction defect lawsuit brought by homeowners in the Meadows at Elkhorn
2
Springs development in Las Vegas, Nevada. Defendant National Fire had issued three policies in this
3
case, with the first incepting on May 18, 2002, and the last ending on November 21, 2004. Each
4
policy obligated the defendant to pay for damages due to bodily injury or property damage to which
5
the insurance applied. Each policy is also modified by an endorsement that eliminates the
6
defendant’s duty to defend where the property damage commenced prior the first day of the policy
7
period.
8
In March 2005, the insured tendered for defense and immunity the first amended complaint
9
in Allen. The complaint alleged that the insured had been aware of the construction defects at the
10
development for more than two years before National Fire issued its first policy:
11
Plaintiffs have previously provided to [d]efendants herein an exhaustive preliminary
list of defects according to the requirements of NRS 40.600, et seq., and [d]efendants
are already aware of the nature of the said defects and have inspected and tested sister
homes in the Meadows development which are subject to separate litigation
involving [d]efendants and have been since 2000.
12
13
14
(Doc. #89-4).
15
Ascertaining whether a duty to defend exists is achieved by comparing the allegations in the
16
complaint with the terms of the policy. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 99 P.3d 1153, 1158
17
(Nev. 2004). Considering the language of the insurance policies and the allegations in the underlying
18
complaint, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the alleged property damage in Allen began
19
prior to the policy date if the defendants were “already aware of the nature of the said defects . . . and
20
have been since 2000” when the first National Fire policy incepted in 2002. Accordingly, the motion
21
for summary judgment is granted.
22
IV.
Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On The Thirty-Ninth Claim
23
Plaintiffs’ thirty-ninth claim for relief seeks a declaration that the defendant had a duty to
24
defend in the Otto action, a construction defect lawsuit brought by homeowners in a custom
25
residence located in Henderson, Nevada. The policy issued by National Fire provided for a duty to
26
defend the insured in a suit alleging bodily injury or property damage but also contained an
27
endorsement excluding coverage of property damage “arising out of, resulting from, caused,
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
1
aggravated or contributed to, directly or indirectly, by the subsidence, settling, sinking, slipping,
2
falling away, caving in, shifting, eroding, mud flow, rising, tilting, or any other movement of land
3
or earth.” (Doc. #89-7).
4
On March 25, 2005, the homeowners filed suit against the parties’ mutual insured alleging
5
that it was responsible for outside concrete flatwork, pool work, and landscape work which resulted
6
in “inadequate fill and/or soil . . . abnormal and severe settlement; improperly placed reinforced steel
7
in the concrete slab; . . . sloping to exterior ground surfaces; cracking . . . the flatwork around the
8
pool, the patio and the drain, the stem wall, the block walls, and/or perimeter walls . . . and/or
9
sloping of the pool.” (Doc. #89-8).
10
Ascertaining whether a duty to defend exists is achieved by comparing the allegations in the
11
complaint with the terms of the policy. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 99 P.3d at 1158. Considering the
12
language of the insurance policies and the allegations in the underlying complaint, there is no
13
genuine issue of material fact that the alleged property damage in Otto falls within the subsidence
14
exclusion of the National Fire policy. The court also finds that the exclusion was mentioned as a
15
reason for denying coverage in the declination letter issue to the insured. (See defendant’s ex. 1 at
16
NF009427). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
17
V.
Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On The Forty-Fifth Claim
18
The forty-fifth claim for relief seeks a declaration that the defendant had a duty to defend in
19
the Sage Creek action, a construction defect lawsuit brought by the homeowners association in the
20
Sage Creek development in Las Vegas, Nevada. The case involved four consecutive commercial
21
general liability insurance policies issued by National Fire to the parties’ mutual insured, Johnson
22
Electric. The first incepted on April 5, 2003, and the last ended on April 5, 2007. Each policy
23
obligated National Fire to pay for property damage, but also contained an endorsement excluding
24
coverage for damage that commenced prior to the inception date of the policy.
25
Ascertaining whether a duty to defend exists is achieved by comparing the allegations in the
26
complaint with the terms of the policy. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 99 P.3d at 1158. Here, the first
27
amended complaint is dated September 6, 2001, two years before the first National Fire policy
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-5-
1
issued. Thus, the “commencement” exclusion operates to bar coverage here.
2
Plaintiffs cite Gary G. Day Construction Company v. Clarendon America Insurance
3
Company for the proposition that for a class action, coverage decisions must be made on an
4
individual, home-by-home basis. 459 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1047 (D. Nev. 2006). The court agrees with
5
plaintiffs’ interpretation; however, the case does not operate to defeat defendant’s motion for
6
summary judgment. Here, in the 2001 complaint, plaintiffs purportedly filed on behalf of a class of
7
persons “similarly situated” which consists of “201 homeowners in Sage Creek.” (Doc. #89-14).
8
Thus, although the class was not certified until 2004, plaintiffs collectively alleged damages which
9
occurred before the inception of the National Fire policy. Accordingly, the motion for summary
10
judgment is granted.
11
Accordingly,
12
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ first motion for
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
summary judgment (doc. #82) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’s second motion for summary judgment (doc.
#83) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the sixth
claim (doc. #85) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the thirtyninth claim (doc. #86) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the fortyfifth claim (doc. #87) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED July 28, 2011.
23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-6-
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?