Evraz Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company

Filing 439

OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 430 as my own opinion. The Motion 410 is GRANTED. The non-settling insurers will retain their equitable offset rights; the right to argue that th e Settlement Agreement, and the resulting contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforcethe express terms of their excess insurance policies. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of June, 2018, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

EVRAZ INC., N.A., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:08-cv-00447-AC

v.
OPINION AND ORDER

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation,
et al.,
Defendants.

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMP ANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant, Counterclaimant,
and Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a foreign
insurance company, et al.,
Defendants and Third-Party
Defendants,

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a foreign
insurance company and AMERICAN
HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, a
foreign insurance company,
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants, Third-Party
Defendants, and Third-Party
Plaintiffs,
v.

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company; and DOES 1-10,
Third-Party Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,
On April 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [430], recommending that the settling parties' Motion for Settlement
[410] should be GRANTED. He also recommended that the non-settling insurers should retain
their equitable offset rights; the right to argue that the Settlement Agreement, and the resulting
contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforce
the express terms of their excess insurance policies. Settling party Continental Insurance
Company filed objections [432]. Non-settling parties Stonewall Insurance Company, ZurichAmerican Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, and Westport Insurance Company filed
a joint response. [438].

DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [430]
as my own opinion. The Motion [410] is GRANTED. The non-settling insurers will retain their
equitable offset rights; the right to argue that the Settlement Agreement, and the resulting
contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforce
the express terms of their excess insurance policies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of June, 2018.

s District Judge

3 - OPINION AND ORDER