State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Filing 48

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (# 43 ) and, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (# 17 ) for Partial Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant's Motion (# 23 ) for Summary Judgment, and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike raised in Defendant's Reply. See Order for details. Signed on 10/11/2016 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (jtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE CO.,

3:15-CV-00969-JE
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and
Recommendation (#43) on July 26, 2016, in which he recommends the
Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion (#17) for Partial Summary
Judgment, deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion (#23) for Summary
Judgment, and deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike (filed as part of
its Reply (#36) in support of its Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment).

Defendant filed timely Objections (#46) to the

Findings and Recommendation.

Defendant objects only to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court grant
1 - ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The matter is

now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
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).

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).
In its Objections (#46) Defendant contends the Court should
not grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the
ground that the insurance policies at issue do not insure the
same risk, and, therefore, the Lamb-Weston doctrine1 does not
apply.

According to Defendant, even if the Lamb-Weston doctrine

did apply, the allocation of liability would be in proportion to
the respective policy limits versus the total combined limits of
all applicable policies.

The Magistrate Judge, however, found

the policies cover the same risk, and, therefore, the Lamb-Weston
doctrine applies.

Thus, the “other insurance” clauses are

mutually repugnant and must be disregarded.

Based on that

finding, the Magistrate Judge also concluded the pro rata
apportionment of the excess tier liability should reflect the
1

The Lamb-Weston doctrine requires the court to disregard
“other insurance” policy provisions when the court finds the
policies cover the same risk.
2 - ORDER

ratio of each individual insurer’s excess policy limits to the
total amount of coverage available under all excess policies.
The Court agrees.
This Court has carefully considered Defendant’s Objections
and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings
and Recommendation nor do they raise any new issues that were not
before the Magistrate Judge.

The Court also has reviewed the

pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any
error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks’s Findings and
Recommendation (#43) and, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
(#17) for Partial Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant’s Motion
(#23) for Summary Judgment, and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to
Strike raised in Defendant’s Reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER