Jones et al v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting deft's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment on all of pltfs' claims; deft's request for sanctions is denied; finding as moot deft's 48 Motion for Protective Order, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ALEX JONES, et al.,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C15-531 MJP
Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

14
Defendant.
15
16
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
17
(Dkt. No. 38.) Having considered the Parties’ briefing and the related record, the Court
18
GRANTS the motion.
19
The Court has now twice considered the question of whether or not attorney Douglas
20
Anderson was an appointed official of Grant County under the insurance contract issued by
21
Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. (Dkt. Nos. 27 at 3-5, 42 at 2-3.) Each
22
time, the Court found that Mr. Anderson was an independent contractor and was not an
23
appointed official, and concluded that Mr. Anderson was not covered under the insurance policy
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT- 1

1 at issue in this case. (Id.) In the interest of judicial economy, the Court incorporates those
2 discussions here.
3

Defendant now moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that

4 because Mr. Anderson was not an insured under the contract, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of
5 law. (Dkt. No. 38.) Plaintiffs “object to the Court’s prior rulings regarding coverage,” but
6 concede that “all of [Plaintiffs’] claims against [Defendant] hinge upon coverage under the
7 applicable insurance policy.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 1.) Plaintiffs also concede that the Court’s prior
8 rulings, “if adhered to, would require [Defendant’s] motion for summary judgment to be
9 granted.” (Id. at 1-2.)
10

The Court again finds that Mr. Anderson was not covered as an appointed official under

11 the insurance policy at issue. The Parties agree that this ruling controls the resolution of all of
12 Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter. (See Dkt. Nos. 38, 44, 46.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
13 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Dkt. No. 38.) The
14 Court finds that Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted here because Plaintiffs may wish to appeal
15 the Court’s previous order(s), and therefore were under no obligation to dismiss the action;
16 Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is
17 DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 48.) The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
18 counsel.
19
20

Dated this 9th day of October, 2015.

22

A

23

Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge

21

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT- 2