Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company, Inc. v. Crawford

Filing 23

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Quash; denying 19 Motion for Discovery; denying 20 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 8/13/13. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Erie Insurance Property & Casualty
Company, Inc.,

:
:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-01080

:

Judge Sargus

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

Plaintiff
v.
Tania Crawford,
:
Defendant

ORDER
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Erie Insurance Property &
Casualty Company, Inc.’s June 17, 2103 motion to quash discovery (doc. 18); defendant
Tania Crawford’s July 1, 2013 motion to deny plaintiff’s motion to quash discovery
(doc. 19) and her July 12, 2013 motion to extend the deadline for completing discovery
(doc. 20).
Allegations in the Amended Complaint. This is a declaratory judgment action.
Erie seeks a declaration that it is not required to provide any benefits, coverage or
defense to its insured, Tania Crawford, in a civil action brought against her in the Meigs
County Common Pleas Court. Joshua Price and Rebecca Terry, as next friend and natural
guardian of Kaylee Terry v. Tania Crawford, 11-CV-032. Price and Terry allege that
Crawford shot and wounded them. In the underlying criminal action, Crawford
pleaded guilty to six counts of Felonious Assault and one count of Discharge of a
1

Firearm on or near Prohibited Premises. By pleading guilty, Crawford waived any
argument for self defense or protection of property.
Arguments of the Parties. Plaintiff argues that the discovery sought by defendant
is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and
admissible evidence. Plaintiff maintains that the insurance policy at issue provides no
duty to defend or indemnify defendant. Although Crawford disagrees with plaintiff’s
interpretation of the contract, the discovery she seeks does not relate to this
disagreement. Plaintiff maintains that the discovery unrelated to the issue of coverage
should not be permitted until the Court renders a decision concerning the scope of
coverage.
Crawford maintains that her discovery requests are relevant and reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Crawford
argues that the Scheduling Order noted that she wanted to conduct discovery on the
merits of the underlying tort action.
Discussion. The basic facts underlying this case are not in dispute. Crawford
pleaded guilty to felonious assault. After Crawford pleaded guilty, plaintiff advised her
that the insurance policies did not provide her with coverage and ceased providing her
a defense in the tort action brought by Price and Terry.
The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law. GenCorp, Inc. v.
American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999). To determine the intent of the
parties, the Court looks at the plain and ordinary meaning of the language in the
2

contract to determine the intent of the parties. Safeco Ins. Co. Of Am. v. White, 122 Ohio
St. 3d 562, 567 (2009). Ambiguous provisions in an insurance contract must be
construed against the insurer. Id. Here, the Court will review the language of the
contract and determine whether plaintiff is required to provide coverage to Crawford
for her actions. Defendant’s discovery requests will not assist the Court in determining
the scope of coverage provided by the contract.
Conclusion. For the reason stated above, plaintiff Erie Insurance Property &
Casualty Company, Inc.’s June 17, 2103 motion to quash discovery (doc. 18) is
GRANTED, and defendant Tania Crawford’s July 1, 2013 motion to deny plaintiff’s
motion to quash discovery (doc. 19) is DENIED. Defendant’s July 12, 2013 motion to
extend the deadline for completing discovery (doc. 20) is also DENIED.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and
Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days
after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the
Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District
Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3