Siltronic Corporation v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau et al

Filing 449

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's F&R (# 416 ) as its opinion and, accordingly, DENIES Siltronic's Motion (# 335 ) for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Separate Limits. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 3/29/18 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (jy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SILTRONIC CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,

3:11-cv-01493-BR

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WAUSAU, a Wisconsin
corporation, and GRANITE STATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendants.
BROWN, Senior Judge.
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued a Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (#416) on January 2, 2018, in which Judge
You recommended the Court deny Plaintiff Siltronic’s Motion
(#335) for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Separate Limits.
On January 23, 2018, Siltronic filed Objections (#425) to
the Magistrate Judge’s F&R.

Wausau filed a Response (#435) to

Siltronic’s Objections on February 6, 2018.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1 - ORDER

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Siltronic objects to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R on two
bases.

First, Siltronic contends the Magistrate Judge erred when

she recommended this Court deny Siltronic’s Motion on the basis
that Siltronic seeks summary judgment on an unpled claim.

In

particular, Siltronic contends its Motion is consistent with the
pleadings and that Wausau is estopped from arguing the Motion
should be denied because Siltronic did not previously plead its
separate aggregate policy-limits claim.

After reviewing the

record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Siltronic
did not adequately provide notice in its pleadings of its
assertion that a separate aggregate policy limit applied to the
contamination that originated from the Rhone-Poulenc facility.
Moreover, the Court rejects Siltronic’s assertion that the
parties’ identification of this issue in a Joint Case Management
Submission (#307) on March 6, 2017, as an issue to be litigated
constitutes a basis to estop Wausau from contending Siltronic has
not adequately pled its claim of separate aggregate policy
limits.

In addition, in light of the age of this case, the need

to bring this matter to a final resolution and the absence of any
established good cause for failing to plead this claim earlier,
the Court concludes it would be inappropriate to permit Siltronic
at this late date to include a claim that separate aggregate

2 - ORDER

policy limits apply.

Accordingly, the Court adopts Section II of

the F&R in which the Magistrate Judge recommended this Court deny
Siltronic’s Motion on the basis that Siltronic seeks summary
judgment on an unpled claim.
Second, Siltronic objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the Court also deny Siltronic’s Motion on the
alternative basis that the contamination that originated from the
Rhone-Poulenc facility is not subject to a separate aggregate
policy limit from the contamination that originated from
activities on the Siltronic property.

After reviewing the

record, however, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis.

Accordingly, the Court also adopts Section III of the

F&R.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
F&R (#416) as its opinion and, accordingly, DENIES Siltronic’s
Motion (#335) for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Separate
Limits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States Senior District Judge
3 - ORDER