King County v Travelers Indemnity Company et al

Filing 739

ORDER granting London Market Insurers' 730 Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Barring Claims re Manson Policies. The Court ORDERS that the cross-claims and counterclaims, by and against London Market Insurers as to alleged additional i nsured coverage under the Manson Policies in this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court further ORDERS that any other claims for contribution, allocation, subrogation, and equitable indemnity, and any other cause of action in connection with this action against London Market Insurers as to the alleged Manson Policies by any other insurer alleged to provide insurance coverage to King County are hereby BARRED. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (TH)

Download PDF
1 Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal Case No. 2:14-cv-01957 BJR corporation, ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN Plaintiff, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON AND CERTAIN LONDON v. MARKET COMPANIES’ MOTION TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; FOR ORDER APPROVING et al., SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CLAIMS RE MANSON POLICIES Defendants. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: January 18, 2018 17 This matter comes before the Court on Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 18 London and Certain London Market Companies’ (collectively “London Market 19 Insurers”) Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Barring Claims re Manson 20 Policies. The Court has considered the motion and all pleadings and filings on record. 21 The Court GRANTS London Market Insurers’ Motion for Order Approving 22 Settlement and Barring Claims and APPROVES the Confidential Settlement 23 Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) between Plaintiff King County 24 and London Market Insurers with regard to King County’s claims for coverage as an 25 ORDER GRANTING LONDON MARKET INSURERS’ MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CLAIMS RE MANSON POLICIES– Page 1 Case No. 2:14-cv-01957 Duane Morris LLP 801 Second Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: +1 206 467 1065 Fax: +1 415 957 3001 1 additional insured under the alleged Manson Policies. The Court further FINDS and 2 ORDERS: 3 1. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable, and was the result of arm’s- 4 length negotiations between parties represented by counsel. The Settlement 5 Agreement is not collusive, inadequate, or entered into for any other improper 6 purpose. 7 2. The non-settling insurers are adequately protected based on the terms 8 of the Settlement Agreement, and King County’s representations related to potential 9 setoff for settlements in this case. See King County v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2018 10 WL 1792189, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018). 11 3. The Court ORDERS that the cross-claims and counterclaims, by and 12 against London Market Insurers as to alleged additional insured coverage under the 13 Manson Policies in this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court further 14 ORDERS that any other claims for contribution, allocation, subrogation, and 15 equitable indemnity, and any other cause of action in connection with this action 16 against London Market Insurers as to the alleged Manson Policies by any other 17 insurer alleged to provide insurance coverage to King County are hereby BARRED. 18 19 20 21 4. The Court DIRECTS that this Order shall be entered as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22nd day of January, 2019. 22 A 23 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 24 25 ORDER GRANTING LONDON MARKET INSURERS’ MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CLAIMS RE MANSON POLICIES– Page 2 Case No. 2:14-cv-01957 Duane Morris LLP 801 Second Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: +1 206 467 1065 Fax: +1 415 957 3001

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?