Insight Investments LLC v. North American Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 191

ORDER. The Court finds that the relevant factors warrant certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is hereby ORDERED. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 03/27/2024. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
INSIGHT INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________
NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
SASHA M. BELL,
Third-Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-20-788-G

ORDER
The primary litigants in this case are Plaintiff Insight Investments, LLC (“Insight”)
and Defendant North American Specialty Insurance Company (“NASIC”).

Insight

asserted claims against NASIC for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing under Oklahoma law.1 By Opinion and Order dated May 23, 2022, the
Court granted summary judgment to NASIC on both of Insight’s claims and denied

In addition to its claim for breach of contract, Insight separately pleaded claims for “Bad
Faith” and “Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.” See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4855, 65-73 (Doc. No. 15). Because these claims represent the same cause of action under
Oklahoma law, the Court has treated them as a single claim.
1

Insight’s motion for partial summary judgment relative to those claims. See Op. & Order
of May 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 162).
What remained then were NASIC’s third-party claims against alleged indemnitor
Sasha M. Bell. For various reasons those claims have not yet progressed to conclusion,
which ultimately is the Court’s responsibility. As a result, the Court raised with counsel
the possibility that the Court’s ruling on Insight’s claims against NASIC be certified for
appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The parties have submitted
supplemental briefing on that issue. See Doc. Nos. 185, 186, 187, 188.
“When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties
are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
than all, claims or parties . . . if the court expressly determines there is no just reason for
delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court finds that such a final judgment should be entered
and that its Opinion and Order of May 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 162), should be certified for
appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b), based upon the following considerations.
First, the Court concludes that its summary judgment ruling is “final” as to Insight’s
two claims against NASIC, because it is a decision on the merits “upon . . . cognizable
claim[s] for relief” and an “ultimate disposition” of those claims. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Op. & Order
at 20 (“NASIC is entitled to judgment [as] a matter of law as to both of Insight’s claims
against it.”).
Second, the Court finds there is “no just reason to delay review” of the Opinion and
Order until the Court has ruled on the remaining third-party claims. Okla. Tpk. Auth. v.
2

Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2001). In so finding, the Court notes that Insight’s
claims against NASIC are factually and legally distinct from the third-party claims
regarding indemnification raised by NASIC against Third-Party Defendant Bell. Compare
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48-73, with NASIC Third-Party Compl. ¶¶ 1-44 (Doc. No. 34). It therefore
does not appear that the appellate court “would have to decide the same issues more than
once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8. The
third-party claims are dependent upon a final resolution of the dispute between Insight and
NASIC, and the Court has already ordered a separate trial setting for those third-party
claims. See Order of May 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 163).2 And Third-Party Defendant Bell has
stipulated that she “agrees to be bound by this Court’s decision regarding the payment bond
claim asserted by [Insight]” against NASIC. Joint Notice of Stipulation (Doc. No. 160) at
2.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the relevant factors warrant certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is hereby ORDERED. A separate judgment
shall be entered in Defendant NASIC’s favor on Plaintiff Insight’s claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2024.

The Court ordered “a separate trial” of the third-party claims as contemplated by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). Order of May 23, 2022, at 1; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
2

3