Centex Homes v. Everest National Insurance Company et al

Filing 42

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must each file a brief by 7/3/2017, not to exceed ten pages, discussing whether the exclusions are relevant to 19 Defendant's Motion with regard to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/18/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CENTEX HOMES, 4 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, vs. EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. 9 10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-01275-GMN-PAL ORDER Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 19), filed by Defendant 11 Lexington Insurance Company (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Centex Homes (“Plaintiff”) filed a 12 Response, (ECF No. 28), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 34). The commercial general 13 liability (“CGL”) policies at issue in this case include the following language: 14 15 16 17 A. Section II –Who Is An Insured is amended to included as an insured [Plaintiff], but only with respect to liability arising out of your on-going operations performed for that insured. B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following exclusion is added: 18 2. Exclusions 19 This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage” occurring after: 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1) All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the site of the covered operations has been completed; or (2) That portion of “your work” out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or Page 1 of 2 subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. 1 2 3 (Ex. 1 to Def.’s App. at 7–8, ECF No. 20-1); (see also Ex. 2 to Def.’s App. at 8–9, ECF No. 20- 4 2). 5 6 7 The parties’ briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss does not discuss the two exclusions to the additional insured endorsement noted above. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must each file a brief by July 3, 2017, not 8 to exceed ten pages, discussing whether the exclusions are relevant to Defendant’s Motion 9 with regard to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. 10 June 18 DATED this _____ day of May, 2017. 11 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2

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?