King County v Travelers Indemnity Company et al
Filing
718
ORDER granting Defendant Providence Washington Insurance Company's 714 Motion for order approving settlement and barring contribution claims by non-settling insurers and approving the Confidential Settlement and Policy Exhaustion Agreement (Settlement) between Plaintiff King County and Providence. The Court orders that the claims, including cross-claims and counterclaims, by and against Providence in this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. In addition, the Court DIRECTS that this O rder shall be entered as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because it is an ultimate disposition of all claims by and against Providence, there is no just reason to delay, and entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) will serve the equities and the interests of efficient judicial administration. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (PM)
1
THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
KING COUNTY,
Case No. 2:14-cv-1957-BJR
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER GRANTING PROVIDENCE
WASHINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
BARRING CONTRIBUTION
CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING
INSURERS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Providence Washington Insurance
Company’s (“Providence”) motion for order approving settlement and barring contribution
claims by non-settling insurers. The Court has considered the motion and all pleadings and
filings on record.
Therefore, being fully advised and consistent with the public policy in favor of
settlements, the Court GRANTS the motion for order approving settlement and barring
contribution claims by non-settling insurers and APPROVES the Confidential Settlement and
Policy Exhaustion Agreement (“Settlement”) between Plaintiff King County and Providence.
The Court further FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Court has reviewed the Settlement and finds that the terms of the Settlement
are reasonable. The Court further finds that the Settlement was the result of arm’s length
ORDER GRANTING PROVIDENCE’S MOTION FOR ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CONTRIBUTION
CLAIMS (No. 2:14-cv-1957) - 1
1
negotiations between parties represented by counsel and that the Settlement is not collusive or
2
inadequate or entered into for any other improper purpose.
3
2.
The Court has also considered the interests of the non-settling defendant insurers.
4
The Court finds that the non-settling insurers are adequately protected based on the terms of the
5
Settlement, the circumstances of this case, and King County’s representations related to potential
6
setoff for settlements in this case. See King County v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2018 WL 1792189,
7
at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018).
8
3.
Based on these findings, the Court ORDERS that the claims, including cross-
9
claims and counterclaims, by and against Providence in this action are DISMISSED with
10
prejudice. The Court further ORDERS that any other claims for contribution, allocation,
11
subrogation, and equitable indemnity, and any other cause of action in connection with this action
12
against Providence by any other insurers of King County are hereby BARRED.
13
4.
In addition, the Court DIRECTS that this Order shall be entered as a final
14
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because it is an ultimate disposition of all
15
claims by and against Providence, there is no just reason to delay, and entry of final judgment
16
under Rule 54(b) will serve the equities and the interests of efficient judicial administration.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2018.
19
20
21
22
A
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER GRANTING PROVIDENCE’S MOTION FOR ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CONTRIBUTION
CLAIMS (No. 2:14-cv-1957) - 2
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?