Young et al v. Apogee Coal Company LLC et al

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying defendant's 89 MOTION to Dismiss 86 Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiffs' 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 5 of Plaintiffs' Sec ond Amended Complaint; denying plaintiffs' 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Six of the Amended Complaint; reaffirming the court's decision to bifurcate Counts One through Four from Counts Five and Six; lifting the stay on further proceedings in connection with Counts One through Four; staying further proceedings in connection with Counts Five and Six pending resolution of Counts One through Four. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/21/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
GINA YOUNG,
Administratrix of the Estate of RICHARD YOUNG JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-01324

APOGEE COAL COMPANY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Previously, the court bifurcated Counts One through Four from Counts Five
and Six of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 56] filed by the plaintiff, Gina Young,
and stayed further proceedings in connection with Count One through Four pending
resolution of Counts Five and Six (i.e., the declaratory judgment actions). Mem. Op.
& Order, Jan. 5, 2015, at 1 [ECF No. 61] (“Order”). Since the Order was entered, the
plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 86] against New Hampshire
Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
In the Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff refashioned the issues raised in the
declaratory judgment actions.1

Compare Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43–48 (Counts Five & Six), with Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43–73 (Counts Five
& Six).

1

Counts One through Four remain bifurcated from Counts Five and Six for the
reasons explained in the Order. However, upon further consideration and in light of
the refashioning of the declaratory judgment actions, the court lifts the
stay on proceedings in connection with Counts One through Four. The court
also stays further proceedings in connection with Counts Five and Six
pending resolution of Counts One through Four. Resolution of Counts One
through Four could be dispositive of the entire case. Clearly, if the plaintiff
does not succeed on Counts One through Four, she is not entitled to a damages
award and the court does not need to decide how the insurance policies operate
upon an award of damages, which is much different than deciding whether coverage
exists.
Because the court stays the proceedings in connection with Counts
Five and Six, the motions associated with those counts—the defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss [ECF No. 89] and the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Count Five [ECF No. 87] and Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Six
[ECF No. 91]—are DENIED. The parties may refile these motions when the stay is
lifted.
For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion & Order, the court
REAFFIRMS its decision to bifurcate Counts One through Four from Counts Five
and Six; LIFTS THE STAY on further proceedings in connection with Counts One

2

through Four; and STAYS further proceedings in connection with Counts Five and
Six pending resolution of Counts One through Four.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

October 21, 2015