Continental Casualty Company v. Ramsey et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART DENYING IN PART 14 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Continental Casualty Company, DENYING 6 Motion to Dismiss filed by Benefits Consulting Group, LLC, Jeff rey Ramsey, 34 Report and Recommendations, 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Benefits Consulting Group, LLC, Jeffrey Ramsey. Plaintiffs request for a declaration that it is not obligated to defend (or indemnify) Defendants in the Underlying Action because the plaintiff in the Underlying Action is a governmental official/agency and not a direct Client of Defendants, per a Policy exclusion, is granted. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/2/17. (cm, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

v.
JEFFREY RAMSEY, BENEFITS
CONSULTING GROUP, LLC

§
§
§ Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-125
§ (Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak)
§
§

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On February 11, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #34) was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #6) be denied, and each of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #14) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #23) be granted in
part and denied in part.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto
having been timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and
conclusions of the Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #6) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that each of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #14)
and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #23) are GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for a declaration that it is not obligated to defend (or

.

indemnify) Defendants in the Underlying Action because the plaintiff in the Underlying Action is
a governmental official/agency and not a direct Client of Defendants, per a Policy exclusion, is
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of March, 2017.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2