Oregon Mutual Insurance Company v. Brecher et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

C16-1911 TSZ

v.
NANCIE BRECHER; and COOK’S
WORLD LLC,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ORDER

Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Oregon Mutual Insurance
Company’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 13, as to which defendants have
filed no response. Having reviewed the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court
enters the following order.
Discussion
In King County Superior Court, Margaret A. Palmquest, M.D. has sued defendant
Cook’s World LLC, a cooking school and kitchen products retailer owned by defendant
Nancie Brecher, for injuries suffered when a deep fry thermometer purchased from

22
23
ORDER - 1

1 Cook’s World exploded during use on February 1, 2014. See Ex. 1 to Stapley Decl.
2 (docket no. 14-1). Plaintiff agreed to defend Cook’s World under a reservation of rights,
3 but seeks in this litigation a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or
4 indemnify Cook’s World with respect to the underlying lawsuit. Plaintiff issued a
5 “Businessowners Protector Policy” (the “Policy”) to Nancie Brecher doing business as
6 Cook’s World for the period from August 11, 2013, to August 11, 2014. See Ex. 4 to
7 Stapley Decl. (docket no. 14-1). The Policy was cancelled at Brecher’s request effective
8 November 1, 2013, apparently because the business had closed. See Ex. 5 to Stapley
9 Decl. (docket no. 14-1 at 123). A policy release statement signed by Brecher indicates
10 that “[n]o claims of any type will be made against the Insurance Company, its agents or
11 its representatives, under this policy for losses which occur after the date of cancellation
12 shown above.” Id. The Court is satisfied that the “bodily injury” for which Cook’s
13 World has been sued occurred outside the policy period and is therefore not covered. See
14 Policy at § II.A.1.b, Ex. 4 to Stapley Decl. (docket no. 14-1 at 90) (indicating that the
15 insurance at issue applies only if “[t]he ‘bodily injury’ . . . occurs during the policy
16 period”). Plaintiff has established the requisite absence of any genuine dispute of
17 material fact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of
18 law that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Cook’s World with respect to the claims
19 asserted by Palmquest.
20 Conclusion
21

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Oregon Mutual Insurance Company’s

22 unopposed motion for summary judgment, docket no. 13, is GRANTED. The Clerk is
23
ORDER - 2

1 DIRECTED to enter declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants
2 consistent with this Order and to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 5th day of May, 2017.

5

A

6
7

Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 3