GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO. et al

Filing 672

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (DOC. 651 ) IS DENIED. ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 6/11/2015. 6/12/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY
v.
FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 04-3509

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ respective
papers and the record,1 it is hereby ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude
the Presentation of Evidence by Plaintiff Regarding Claims Where It Has Not Established
Coverage Under the Travelers Policies” (doc. no. 651), which was submitted by Defendant
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
(collectively, “Travelers”), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and DECLARED that at the trial scheduled for July 13,
2015, the summary trial exhibits proffered by Plaintiff, General Refractories Company (“GRC”)
– the “Claims Database” and the “Queue,” as ruled to be admissible in the Memorandum dated
May 29, 2015 (doc. no. 662) – are also admissible to prove the reasonableness of the settlements
of the underlying asbestos-related claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and DECLARED that at trial, Travelers may challenge
GRC’s proof with admissible, material evidence that presents a genuine triable dispute for the

1

Defendant’s Motion and Brief (ECF document nos. 651, 651-1), Exhibits (“Exs.”) 1-2 (doc. nos.
651-3 through 651-4); Plaintiff’s Response (doc. no. 655); Affidavit of Michael Conley, dated Apr. 17, 2015
(doc. no. 646), with Exs. 1-8 (doc. nos. 646-1 through 646-8); Declaration of Michael Conley, dated May
1, 2015 (doc. no. 657), with Exs. A-K (doc. nos. 657-1 through 657-11); Affidavit of Michael Conley, dated
Sept. 16, 2011, with Exs. 1 and 2 (doc. no. 364); and Defendant’s Reply (doc. no. 660).

1

jury to resolve as to the reasonableness of the settlements and payments made in the underlying
asbestos-related claims. Travelers’ evidence and argument shall be limited strictly to the
question of whether those settlements and payments were reasonable “in view of the size of
possible recovery and degree of probability of claimant’s success against the insured.” TIG Ins.
Co. v. Nobel Learning Communities., Inc., No. 01-4708, 2002 WL 1340332, at *12 (E.D. Pa.
June 18, 2002) (quoting American Int’l Underwriters Corp. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., 771 F. Supp.
690, 701-02 (W.D. Pa. 1991)).

BY THE COURT:

_s/ L. Felipe Restrepo_________________
L. FELIPE RESTREPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2