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)

Download PDF
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

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?