Miller v. Great American Insurance Company
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER: granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 56 Motion Supplement Record and Rule on Summary Judgment Motion. Copies distributed to all parties on 11/12/2014. (See infra and supra notes for specifics). Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 11/10/2014 and filed on 11/12/2014. (bgra)
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT
OF
FILED
COURT
VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
NOV 1 2 2014
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
JOHN S. MILLER d/b/a
NORFOLK, VA
CHESAPEAKE CORE SUPPLY,
Plaintiff,
ACTION NO:
v.
2:llcv67
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
This
matter
comes
before
the
FINAL
ORDER
court
on
the
Motion
Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum in Support
for Summary Judgment"),
Defendant,
American"),
on
respectively.
Miller,
Summary
filed
Great
March
ECF Nos.
his
Judgment
("Motion to Supplement"),
American
18,
37,
Insurance
2013,
38,
Memorandum
on
("Motion
and the "Motion to Supplement the Record
and Rule on Summary Judgment"
the
for
and
in
and
56.
Opposition
March 29, 2013,
Defendant filed its Reply on April 1,
Company
September
The
ECF
2013.
filed by
12,
Plaintiff,
to
No.
the
("Great
2014,
John S.
Motion
42,
ECF No.
and
for
the
43. * The
1 On April 15, 2011, Great American filed a Motion to Stay the
proceedings in this case to allow for the resolution of a
criminal action against the Plaintiff in the Circuit Court for
the City of Chesapeake for attempting to obtain money by false
pretense, in violation of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-26 and 18.2-178.
ECF No. 11. By Order of May 5, 2011, the court granted the stay.
ECF No. 17. On February 22, 2013, the court lifted the stay
Plaintiff did not
file a Response to the Defendant's Motion to
Supplement,
and the
Motion
Summary Judgment
ripe
for
for
review.
time
For
to do
so
has
expired.
and Motion
the
reasons
to
set
As
such,
Supplement
forth
are
below,
the
now
the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Supplement
are GRANTED.
I. Factual and Procedural History
A. Factual History2
The
Plaintiff
Chesapeake
Core
operated
Supply
(the
a
sole
proprietorship
"Business"),
trading
which was
as
located at
1751 West Road in Chesapeake, Virginia. Compl. 1H 5, 7, ECF No.
1.
Chesapeake
Core
Supply
was
in
the
selling auto parts and scrap metals.
maintained an insurance
American,
policy
(the
which provided coverage
business
Id.
% 6.
"Policy")
for
damage
of
buying
and
The Plaintiff
issued by Great
to
the
Business,
consisting of a commercial office building and a warehouse,
and
after the conclusion of the Plaintiff's criminal proceedings, in
which he was found guilty. ECF No. 36. On March 29, 2013, the
Plaintiff
filed a Motion to
Reinstitute
the
Stay pending
resolution of his appeal of his state court criminal conviction.
ECF No. 40. The court granted the Motion to Reinstitute the Stay
on April 19, 2013.
ECF No.
47.
On February 18,
2014,
the
Plaintiff advised the court that his appeal was denied by the
Court
of
Appeals
of
Virginia,
ECF
No.
52,
and
on
August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff advised the court that his appeal
was denied by the Supreme Court of Virginia. ECF No. 55.
Accordingly, the court LIFTS the stay issued in the Order of
April 19, 2013.
2 The facts presented are undisputed except as noted.
2
to
the
Business
personal
liability limit of
the
Business
property,
$484,000 for the
personal
property.
such
coverage
building,
Id.
Ex.
having
a
and $106,101 for
A.
Loss
of
property
through fire is a loss covered by the Policy. Id. fl 10. As part
of
the
standard
"Concealment,
coverage
provisions,
Misrepresentation,
or
the
Fraud"
Policy
included
a
provision under
the
Policy
the
"General Conditions" section. Id. Ex. A.3
On
February
Business
office
12,
caught
fire,
building
and
personal property.
2009,
during
physically
its
Id.
damaging
contents,
1 8.
the
both
which
On April 1,
period,
the
included
2009,
commercial
Business
the Plaintiff
filed a sworn statement of Proof of Loss with Great American,
which
he
stated
the
total
amount
of
loss
as
$157,026,
in
which
consisted of $121,146 in damages to the building structure and
$35,880 in damages to the Business personal property.
Id. Ex. B.
The Plaintiff's Business personal property claim included damage
to a Dyson vacuum cleaner, valued at $500, and damage to twentyfive
(25)
Mot.
Summ.
airbags,
J.
valued at
Ex.
5.
following statement:
The
a total of
Proof
of
$4800.
Loss
See Mem.
Form
"Applicable in Virginia-
Supp.
included
it is a crime
the
to
knowingly provide false, incomplete or misleading information to
an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding the company.
Penalties
include
imprisonment,
fines
and
denial
3 See infra at 5 for the text of this provision.
3
of
insurance
benefits." Compl. Ex. B.4
Upon the request of Great American,
the
Plaintiff
was
examined under oath regarding
sustained from the fire. Mem.
this first examination,
an
increase
in
the
as
amount
$170,462.
under oath on April 14,
from the fire.
received
any
associated
Id.
of
loss
Id.
Id.
fl 16.
The
2010,
based
the
Summ. J.
losses
he
U 13. During
from
fire,
on
a
new
estimate
for
The new loss amount was
Plaintiff
was
again
examined
regarding the losses he suffered
U 18. At this point,
payment
with
Supp. Mot.
the
the Plaintiff advised Great American of
the repair of the building.
documented
on September 14, 2009,
Great
the Plaintiff had not
American
despite
his
for
the
numerous
losses
efforts
to
collect payment. Id. H 21.
B. Procedural History
On February
4,
2011,
the Plaintiff
filed a Complaint
in
this court alleging that Great American breached its insurance
contract
with
the
Plaintiff
when
it
refused
to
pay
him,
in
accordance with the Policy for the losses associated with the
fire.
The
Complaint
further
repeatedly requested payment
alleged
that
the
Plaintiff
under the Policy in advance
of
filing the Complaint. Compl. 1 21. The Plaintiff also sought the
4 The monetary amount of the fraud vis a vis the total monetary
amount
of
the
claim is
not
the
dispositive
issue.
The
fraud,
itself, in making any part of the claim, is the issue. In other
words, a claim of "just a little fraud" is not a defense or
counter-argument. See infra Part III.
"award
of
attorney's
fees
Great American's bad faith,
and
costs
incurred
as
a
result
of
as provided in Virginia Code § 32.8-
209." Id. H 26.
Great American,
March 9, 2011,
in
denied
its Answer
that
the
to
the
Complaint,
Plaintiff
had
filed on
sufficiently
supported his claimed losses under the Policy, and asserted as
one of its affirmative defenses that the Plaintiff:
gave false testimony during his Examinations Under
Oath regarding, among other things, items in the claim
that were not damaged in the fire, the disposition of
certain items that were claimed, [Miller's] ownership
of duplicates of items that were claimed, and by
inflating the value of allegedly fire damaged items in
the claim.
Answer
H 30.
breached
the
"Concealment,
Great
American argued
Policy's
"General
that
this
Conditions"
Misrepresentation
or
false
testimony
pertaining
Fraud"
to
provision,
the
which
states:
This Coverage Part is void in any case of fraud by you
as it relates to this Coverage Part at any time. It is
also void if you or any other Insured, intentionally
conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning:
(1)
this
Coverage
Part;
(2)
the
Covered
(3) your interest in the Covered Property;
Property;
or
(4)
a
claim under this Coverage Part.
Id. H 29; Compl. Ex. A (emphasis added).5
5 This provision is basically the same as the standard "false
swearing" provision required for fire insurance policies issued
in Virginia, as provided in Virginia Code § 38.2-2105, which
states:
Concealment,
if
whether
willfully
fraud:
before
This entire policy shall be void,
or
after
concealed or
a
loss,
the
misrepresented
insured
any
has
material
Sometime
in
instituted an
October
insurance
the
Plaintiff's
the
The
home
of
Summ.
J.
at
2.
As
of
the
Virginia
Plaintiff's
investigation yielded the recovery
some of
inventory submitted as part of his
Mot.
Commonwealth
fraud investigation of
claim under the Policy.
from
2009,
a result,
the
items
he
listed on
insurance claim.
the
Mem.
Commonwealth of
the
Supp.
Virginia
commenced a criminal action against the Plaintiff for attempting
to obtain money by false pretense,
in violation of Virginia Code
§§ 18.2-26 and 18.2-178. The Plaintiff was subsequently indicted
by a grand jury in the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake
on February 1, 2011. Id. at 3-4.
Thereafter, on April 15, 2011, Great American moved to stay
the civil proceedings in this court, pending the resolution of
the criminal action against the Plaintiff in the Circuit Court
for the City of Chesapeake.6 The court accordingly granted the
request
to
stay
the
civil
proceedings,
and
required
American to update the court periodically regarding the
Great
status
of the criminal proceedings. Order,
May 5, 2011, ECF No. 17; see
also Order, Sept.
19.
12,
2011, ECF No.
On February 15, 2013,
after
a bench trial
fact or circumstance concerning this
in the Circuit
insurance or the
subject thereof,
or the
interest of
the
insured
therein, or in the case of any fraud or false swearing
by the insured relating thereto.
Va.
Code
§ 38.2-2105.
6 See supra note 1.
Court for the City of Chesapeake,
the Plaintiff was found guilty
of the felony of attempting to obtain money by false pretense in
violation of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-26 and 18.2-178,
fraudulent
insurance
claim
that
he
submitted
based on a
regarding
damage
and losses associated with a Dyson vacuum cleaner and a number
of airbags. See Mem.
Supp. Mot.
Summ. J. at 4-8; Mem. Opp'n Mot.
Summ. J. at 2. On February 22, 2013, the court lifted the stay.
ECF No.
36.
On March 18,
2013,
Great American filed the instant Motion
for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum in Support.
March 20, 2013,
On
the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Court of Appeals of Virginia appealing his state court criminal
conviction. Def.'s Mot.
On March
29,
2013,
& Mem.
the
Plaintiff
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff
filed
a
Suppl. R. Ex.
Motion
responded
1 at 1, ECF No.
to
the Defendant's
ECF No. 42. On that same day,
to
Reinstitute
56.
Stay
pending
the
the
resolution of his appeal with the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Great American replied to the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition
to
Summary
Judgment
April 9, 2013,
Motion
to
April 15,
April 19,
Great
Reinstitute
2013.
The
on
April 1,
American
Stay,
court
2013.
responded
and
the
reissued
ECF
to
No.
the
Plaintiff
the
stay
43.
On
Plaintiff's
replied
by
on
Order
of
2013, and required the Plaintiff to update the court
periodically regarding the status of the criminal proceedings.
ECF No.
47.
On October 16, 2013,
the Court of Appeals of Virginia found
the Plaintiff's argument meritless and denied his petition for
appeal.
Def.'s Mot. Mem.
Report,
ECF
Virginia
Suppl.
R.
response
No.
denied
Ex.
to
American filed a
Summary
the
2 at
the
On
52.
Suppl.
July
R. Ex. 1 at 1; see also Status
16, 2014,
Plaintiff's
1;
Reports,
ECF
("Motion
September 12, 2014. ECF No. 56.
filed any additional briefings,
Def.'s
Report,
Nos.
"Motion to Supplement
Judgment"
Supreme
See
appeal.
see also Status
Status
the
52
Court
Mot.
ECF No.
and
55,
of
Mem.
55.
In
Great
the Record and Rule
on
Supplement"),
on
to
To date,
the Plaintiff has not
including briefings addressing
the denial of his appeal by the Court of Appeals of Virginia and
by the Supreme Court
of Virginia,
thereby making his criminal
conviction final.
II.
Summary
judgment
Standard of Review
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
("FRCP") 56 is appropriate when the court, viewing the record as
a whole and in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Anderson v.
Liberty
Lobby,
Inc.,
477
U.S.
242,
248-50
(1986).
"[A] t the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not
himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter
but
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
genuine
issue
for
trial." Id. at 249. A court should grant summary judgment if the
nonmoving party, after adequate time for discovery,
to
establish
the
existence
of
an
essential
has failed
element
of
that
party's case, on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
essence,
the
nonmovant
[trier of fact]
Anderson,
To
must
477 U.S.
present
317,
323
(1986).
"evidence
on
which
the
could reasonably find" for the nonmoving party.
477 U.S.
defeat
at 252.
a
motion
for
summary
judgment,
the
nonmoving
party must go beyond the facts alleged in the pleadings,
rely instead on affidavits,
depositions,
show a genuine issue for trial.
see also M & M Med.
Hosp.,
In
Inc., 981 F.2d 160, 163
or other evidence to
See Celotex,
Supplies & Serv.,
and
Inc.
(4th Cir.
477 U.S.
v.
at 324;
Pleasant Valley
1993)
("A motion for
summary judgment may not be defeated by evidence that is *merely
colorable'
Anderson,
or
477
'is
U.S.
not
at
sufficiently
249-50).
specific evidentiary support,
162
F.3d
existence
795,
of
802
a
(4th
scintilla
probative.'")
Conclusory
statements,
do not suffice,
Cir.
of
1998),
nor
evidence
in
Causey v.
does
(quoting
without
Balog,
"[t]he
support
of
mere
the
plaintiff's position." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Rather, "there
must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
plaintiff." Id^
III. Applicable Law
In a diversity suit,
law
and
this
the
case
choice
of
is Virginia.
Corp. , 709 F. Supp.
Co.
v.
Stentor
Because
the
the
See
place
Wright
2000)
241
Ins.
313
is
state,
Co.
v.
2010)
U.S.
487,
characterized
an
(1993));
Buchanan
contract
v.
Doe,
see also John Deere
Co.,
Inc. ,
118
F.
Supp.
496-97
as
Inc. , 790
F.
1995);
Supp.
a
Ryder Truck Rental,
637,
641
(W.D. Va.
(1941)).
breach
of
law of the
effect of
the
'the law of
written
and
Va.
67,
431
Constr.
689,
(citing Fuisz v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.,
(4th Cir.
Mgmt.
is
246
2d
in
(citing Klaxon
law requires the
insurance
which
Dragas
("Virginia insurance law applies
(quoting
Equip.
Co.,
action
forum
contract was made to govern the
where
S.E.2d 289
the
(E.D. Va.
Virginia choice of
id.
delivered.'")
of
Builders Mut.
Mfg.
instant
place where the
contract.
law rules
2d 432, 436
Elec.
contract claim,
this court must apply the substantive
Inc.
v.
70,
Equip.
692
Co.
(W.D.
v.
Va.
61 F.3d 238,
UTF Carriers,
1992) . Therefore,
this
court will apply Virginia law to the breach of contract claim.7
In Virginia, an insurer can avoid its obligations under a
policy
See,
for
e.g.,
CV-00015,
either
fraud
Utica Mut.
2002
WL
or
Ins.
1162602,
false
Co.
at
v.
*8
swearing
Presgraves,
(W.D.
Va.
by
No.
the
insured.
CIV.A.
5:01-
May 28, 2002)
(a
7 The parties do not dispute that Virginia law applies to the
instant action.
10
violation
of
the
fraud
provision
of
a
fire
insurance
policy
results in a forfeiture of rights to recover under the policy);
see
also Globe
237,
240
& Rutgers
(4th Cir.
in Virginia on
Co.
v. Hogue,
which
the
purpose
Ins.
105 Va.
355,
defined
making
a
Co.,
v.
Stallard,
(setting forth the
inapposite facts);
court
in
1934)
Fire
as
"the
8,
13
& Marine
Ins.
(1906)
(moral fraud,
motive
corrupt
representation,"
F.2d
long-standing rule
Virginia Fire
54 S.E.
68
or
renders
a
dishonest
policy
of
insurance void).
IV. Analysis
The
Motion
Defendant
for
advances
Summary
one
Judgment.
argument
The
Defendant
Plaintiff breached the "Concealment,
provision
of
fraudulent
the
claim
Policy,8
under
when
the
in
support
alleges
of
its
that
the
Misrepresentation or Fraud"
the
Policy,
Plaintiff
which
submitted
in
a
effect
voids
coverage under the Policy. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.
at 1.
Additionally, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff's criminal
conviction
in
collaterally
the
Circuit
estops
the
Court
for
Plaintiff
the
from
City
of
Chesapeake
disputing
that
he
committed insurance fraud against the Defendant, and that aside
from
the
actual
conviction,
the
evidence
establishes the Plaintiff's fraud. See id.
in
the
record
at 10-12.
8 See supra note 5 and accompanying text for Great American's
policy provision, and the applicable Virginia Code section.
11
At
a
threshold
level,
the
court
must
determine
the
collateral estoppel effect in the instant federal action of the
criminal
conviction
for
fraud
in
state
court.
While
there
is
recognition "that the parties in a criminal proceeding are not
the
same
as
those
in
a
civil
consequent lack of mutuality,"
201
Va.
466,
472,
111
proceeding
and
there
is
Smith v. New Dixie Lines,
S.E.2d
434,
438
(1959)
a
Inc.,
(rule
of
mutuality) , "an exception to the requirement of mutuality arises
when a
plaintiff
direct
result
of
attempts
his
to
or
recover
her
own
for
a
harm
criminal
that
the
and
conduct,
is
the
dispositive issue in the civil action is the precise issue that
the criminal conviction addressed."
467,
471,
463
S.E.2d 657,
660
Godbolt v.
(1995)
Brawley,
250 Va.
(setting forth controlling
principle, but on inapposite facts to case at bar);9 accord Kane
v.
Hargis,
987
conviction for
civil
action
British
S.E.
legal
to
323
effect
attacking
its
from
9 Effect of
1005,
resisting
Dominions
314,
damages
F.2d
(1927)
of
arrest
recover
Ins.
for
Co.
v.
where
149
15-16.
12
Va.
prevented
for
Eagle,
82,
&
111-12,
140
the
by
civil
insured
Star
a
avoiding
from
arson
subsequent
the
(criminal
collaterally estop
Godbolt and factual differences
discussed infra at
1993)
wrong);
Heller,
in
Cir.
not
another
conviction
admissibility
Thus,
(4th
does
(plaintiff
criminal
fire).
1008
is
collateral
action
for
originally
to case at bar are
convicted in another court
for fraud,
this
court may consider
that criminal conviction for purposes of establishing fraud in
the later civil case,
if the
insured seeks to recover insurance
proceeds from the fraud of which he was convicted.
In
the
Circuit
instant
Court
case,
for
the
the
City
Plaintiff
of
Chesapeake
obtain money under false pretense,
§§ 18.2-26 and 18.2-178,
regarding
fire.
the
The
losses
Plaintiff
was
convicted
for
in
attempting
the
to
in violation of Virginia Code
for filing a fraudulent insurance claim
he
sustained
appealed
his
after
his
conviction
Business
to
the
caught
Court
of
Appeals of Virginia and the Supreme Court of Virginia. The Court
of Appeals
of Virginia denied his
appeal on October 16,
stating that his argument was meritless,
the
evidence
Supreme
was
Court
insufficient
of
Virginia
to
wherein he argued that
support
also
2013,
his
denied
conviction.
his
The
appeal
on
July 16, 2014. This conviction is now final. See Conn. Gen. Life
Ins.
Co.
v.
(stating
that
defendant's
'stands
The
criminal
351
"once
petition
fully
Prudential
(E.D. Va.
Riner,
Ins.
F. Supp. 2d 492,
the
for
Virginia
writ
convicted
Co.
of
of
Supreme
error
under
Am.
v.
498
(W.D.
Court
.
.
532
this
court
F.
2005)
resolves
a
. that
defendant
law'")
Virginia
Tull,
Va.
(quoting
Supp.
341,
342-43
1981)).
Plaintiff
conviction
claims
for
that
purposes
13
of
cannot
denying
consider
his
breach
his
of
contract
claim
for
the
act
not
establish
because
that
(1)
the
caused his
his
intent
conviction
loss;
to
and
deceive
is
(2)
and
not
the
a
conviction
conviction does
defraud
the
Defendant.
See Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. at 5-8. The Plaintiff's contentions are
factually and/or legally incorrect under
the
undisputed record
in this case before this court.
In
the
arsonist's
case
of
criminal
Eagle,
Star,
conviction
was
the
court
admissible
held
in
a
that
an
subsequent
recovery for damages from the insurer because the arsonist was
attempting to collect proceeds from the very fire he caused. 149
Va.
at
112,
140
S.E.
at
323.
The
court
reasoned
that
the
"plaintiff should not be permitted to reopen the question and
avoid the
legal
effect
of
the
judgment
of
a
conviction by
a
collateral attack upon it." Id_;_ 149 Va. at 100, 140 S.E. at 319.
This reasoning is also applicable here.
The Plaintiff in the instant case engaged in an attempt to
defraud the Defendant by submitting a fraudulent insurance claim
after
his
proceeds
Business
from
the
caught
very
fire.
Thus,
fraudulent
he
claim
sought
that
he
to
collect
submitted.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff was convicted in state court for the
fraud.
First,
doubt
necessarily
"Concealment,
the conviction for this felony beyond a reasonable
proves
that
Misrepresentation
14
the
or
Plaintiff
Fraud"
breached
provision
of
the
the
Policy.10 Moreover, the fire, which led the Plaintiff to file an
insurance
claim,
is
not
the
direct
cause
of
his
inability
to
collect insurance proceeds; his attempt to defraud the Defendant
in filing the claim is.
state
court
Plaintiff's
Fraud"
conviction
breach
provision,
of
As
such,
for
the
the court may consider his
purposes
of
"Concealment,
establishing
Misrepresentation
which renders the Policy void,
the
or
and bars the
Plaintiff from recovering for the losses sustained by the fire.
The
Plaintiff may not
avoid the
legal
effect of
his
criminal
conviction in the instant action.
In Godbolt, upon which the Plaintiff relies, the court held
that
a plaintiff's
criminal
conviction of
was not the direct cause of his injury,
the
intentional
assault
and was inadmissible in
civil action where the plaintiff sought to recover damages
from the defendant's use of deadly force when defending against
that
intentional
S.E.2d at
may
have
660.
assault.
The
Court
See
Godbolt,
reasoned
that
250
Va.
at
although
the
472,
463
plaintiff
intentionally engaged in the assaultive behavior,
he
did not engage in the use of deadly force and did not consent to
its
use.
plaintiff
force.
10
See
Id.
The
sought
direct
damages
cause
was
of
the
the
injury
defendant's
for
which
use
of
the
deadly
Id.
supra note
5 and accompanying
policy provision.
15
text
for
the applicable
While the legal principle in Godbolt applies to the instant
case,
the case at bar is factually distinguishable.
It is this
undisputed factual distinction that makes the outcome different
here.
The
plaintiff
defendant's wrong,
in
Godbolt
sought
use
of
deadly
force,
wrongdoing.
In
the
instant
case,
is seeking
submission of a
resulted
in
a
recover
from
the
and thus the direct cause of damages was the
defendant's
Plaintiff
to
to
recover
and
as
from
not
court
felony
plaintiff's
discussed
his
own
fraudulent insurance claim,
state
the
above,
the
wrongdoing--the
the effect of which
conviction.
Therefore,
the
Plaintiff's reliance on Godbolt is misplaced.
Finally,
action
was
the element
necessarily
conviction for fraud,
of fraudulent
proven
which,
court may consider. Thus,
this
civil
matter
is
by
the
intent
in the instant
Plaintiff's
criminal
for the reasons stated above,
the
any question of fraudulent intent in
eliminated
by
the
Plaintiff's
criminal
conviction. Accordingly, there is no issue of intent to resolve,
and summary judgment is proper. See Anderson,
50.
The
elements
of
the
established for purposes
criminal
conviction.
See
claim
of
or
defense
this civil
Conn.
Gen.
477 U.S. at 248have
already
action by
Life
Ins.
been
the prior
Co.,
351
F. Supp. 2d at 498 ("Holding a civil trial to resolve an already
answered
question
would
be
an
judicial resources.").
16
unnecessary
expenditure
of
IV.
For
the
Supplement
reasons
Conclusion
discussed
above,
the
Defendant's
the Record and Rule on Summary Judgment
Motion
to
is GRANTED,
as is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The
Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a
copy of
this Memorandum
Opinion and Final Order to counsel for all parties and to enter
judgment for the Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/§/
_
Rebecca Beach Smith
Chief . . T ,
fnr^
United States District Judge J2j^
REBECCA
BEACH
CHIEF UNITED
November \D , 2014
17
SMITH
STATES
DISTRICT
JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?