Continental Casualty Company v. Jones et al

Filing 135

ORDER denying without prejudice 121 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 06/16/2010.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION C o n tin e n ta l Casualty Company, P l a in tif f , v. J a m es R. Jones, II; Carolina Jones aka C aro l Jones; Elizabeth Leitner; Jones L e itn e r & Co.; Jones and Leitner, CPAs, P .A .; Jones Leitner, Inc.; Jones, Reeves & Co.; Eric E. Youngblood, Trustee of th e D.C. Sheppard Trust; Dana C. S h e p p a rd , individually and as Natural G u a rd ia n for S. S., a Minor; Joseph E. C h a m b e r s ; David S. Johnson; Catherine J o h n s o n ; and W. Shell Suber, Jr., D e f e n d a n ts . ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 3:09-1004-JFA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

T h e plaintiff, Continental Casualty Company, has moved for partial judgment on the p le a d in g s pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) with regard to the 13th and 16th Affirmative D e f en s e s and Second Counterclaim in the Amended Answer and Counterclaim of the group o f defendants that have collectively been referred to in this litigation as the "Leitner D e f en d a n ts ." At issue is the question of whether the "Innocent Insured Provision" of the A c c o u n ta n ts Professional Liability Policies involved in this case override other terms and c o n d itio n s of the policies. Specifically, the Leitner Defendants argue that, pursuant to the Inn o ce n t Insured Provision, when any insured acts dishonestly, "innocent insureds" are e n title d to coverage regardless of the grounds on which coverage otherwise would be 1

unavailable. It is the position of Continental that the Innocent Insured Provision provides p r o te c tio n for innocent insureds only where the Dishonesty Exclusion of the policy otherwise w o u ld bar coverage. Continental argues that the Innocent Insured Provision does not apply to the Prior Knowledge Provision of the policy or to any other term and condition of the p o lic y that might limit or bar coverage for any particular claim. T h e court has carefully reviewed the memoranda submitted by all parties and has d e te rm in e d that oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. While Continental m a y be correct in suggesting that the issue presenting in its motion raises a pure question of la w , the court notes that discovery is expected to expire in this case on July 15, 2010. T h e re f o re , the court has concluded that the issue presented in Continental's motion for partial s u m m a ry judgment would be better considered in the context of a summary judgment motion a d d re ss in g all of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion without p re ju d ice and with the understanding that the "innocent insureds" issue will be raised again b y way of a summary judgment motion on all issues following the conclusion of discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 16, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge