STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN

Filing 430

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 395 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 406 Motion for Leave to File a reply brief. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/27/2012. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN,
Defendants.
THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN,
Counterclaimant and
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Counterclaim-Defendant
and
NICHOLAS M. ANDERSON,
Third-Party Defendant,
and
SCIBAL ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant and
Third-Party Counterclaimant.
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN and SCIBAL
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
PETER E. MUELLER
HARWOOD LLOYD, LLC
130 MAIN STREET
HACKENSACK, NJ 07601

CIV. NO. 08-5128(NLH)(AMD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

WALTER J. ANDREWS
MICHAEL S. LEVINE
ROCKLAN W. KING III
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
1751 PINNACLE DRIVE
SUITE 1700
MCLEAN, VA 22102
On behalf of State National Insurance Company
WILLIAM M. TAMBUSSI
JOSEPH T. CARNEY
WILLIAM F. COOK
BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
360 HADDON AVENUE
P.O. BOX 539
WESTMONT, NJ 08108
On behalf of the County of Camden
JEFFREY MATTHEW BEYER
MARK D. SHERIDAN
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
500 CAMPUS DRIVE
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932-1047
On behalf of The Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania
ALAN J. BARATZ
JOSEPH T. DALY
WEINER LESNIAK
629 PARSIPPANY ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 438
PARSIPPANY , NJ 07054-0438
On behalf of Scibal Associates, Inc.
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of The
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania for reconsideration1

1

Local Civil Rule 7.1(I) governs a motion for
reconsideration. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] motion
for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 10 business
2

of the Court’s June 17, 2011 denial of its motion for summary
judgment2; and
The Court having denied ICSOP’s motion without prejudice
because issues of material fact remained as to numerous issues; and
ICSOP arguing that in denying its motion for summary judgment
the Court only considered its motion as to the County, and
overlooked its alternative motion as to State National; and
ICSOP arguing that the Court should have considered--and
granted--its motion as to State National, because:
If, as State National argues, the County breached the
State National policy by failing to adequately defend the
Anderson Lawsuit, then neither State National or ICSOP
has a duty to pay. But, as ICSOP’s motion established,
if the County did not breach the State National policy,
then State National breached its duty to settle the
Anderson Lawsuit within the limit of the State National
policy, and therefore, must indemnify ICSOP.
(ICSOP Brief at 7); but

days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original
motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth
concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party
believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be
filed with the Notice of Motion.” A judgment may be altered or
amended only if the party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the
motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s
Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999).
2

Also pending is ICSOP’s motion for leave to file a reply
brief. The Court has considered all papers submitted in
connection with ICSOP’s motion, and will therefore grant its
request nunc pro tunc.
3

The Court finding that it did not overlook ICSOP’s alternative
basis for summary judgment as to State National; and
The Court noting that because disputed facts exist as to the
County’s conduct, as found in the June 17, 2011 Opinion, the Court
could not then, and cannot now, issue an opinion as to whether
State National must indemnify ICSOP “if” it is found that the
County did not breach the State National policy, because in the
event that it is found that the County did breach the State
National policy, any opinion as State National’s duty to ICSOP
would be advisory;3 and

3

ICSOP describes its requested relief in its original
summary judgment motion as one for a “declaration” as to State
National’s obligation to indemnify it. With regard to claims
seeking a declaratory judgment from the court, “declaratory
judgments are issued before ‘accomplished’ injury can be
established, and this ex ante determination of rights exists in
some tension with traditional notions of ripeness.” Step-Saver
Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912 F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir.
1990) (citation omitted). But, because the Constitution
prohibits federal courts from deciding issues in which there is
no case or controversy, U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, declaratory
judgments can be issued only when there is “an actual
controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Thus, the “discretionary power
to determine the rights of parties before injury has actually
happened cannot be exercised unless there is a legitimate dispute
between the parties.” Step-Saver, 912 F.2d at 647.
ICSOP’s declaration request--when made in its original
motion and in its current motion--cannot be provided when
disputed facts abound as to the conduct of all the parties
involved. See id. (explaining that a Court’s declaration cannot
be based upon, or result in, an “if/then” contingency). Indeed,
this entire suit was filed by State National as a declaratory
judgment action seeking a declaration that it does not owe
coverage to the County under its insurance policy. The Court,
however, has not been able to issue such a declaration because
the facts necessary to make such a declaration remain disputed.
See, e.g., Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912
4

Moreover, the Court further noting that the basis for ICSOP’s
motion makes conclusions on matters of law and fact (i.e., that
State National undisputedly breached its duty to make a good faith
attempt to settle the Anderson Lawsuit) not yet determined by the
Court, see Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912
F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 1990) (“Construing a contract and making law
without finding the necessary facts constitutes advisory opinion
writing, and that is constitutionally forbidden.”); and
The Court finally noting that the scope of ICSOP’s motion for
reconsideration has transcended its original motion4;
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY on this

27th

day of March , 2012

ORDERED that The Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania’s motion for leave to file a reply brief [406] is
GRANTED, and its motion for reconsideration [395] is DENIED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey

F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 1990)(discussing Aetna Life Insurance Co.
v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240–41 (1937), where the plaintiff
insurance company asked the court to declare a disability policy
null and void by reason of lapse for nonpayment of premiums, but
in order to do so, the court had to first determine whether the
insured actually failed to pay the premiums).
4

ICSOP’s motion for summary judgment was denied without
prejudice. ICSOP may refile its motion at any appropriate time
in the future consistent with this Opinion.
5