Gronik et al v. Balthasar et al

Filing 725

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/20/15 granting 724 Motion to clarify. Summary judgment on the issue of mold remediation expenses is denied. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_____________________________________________________________________
DAVID S. GRONIK, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-cv-0954

SUSAN BALTHASAR, et al.,
Defendants,
and
SHOREWEST REALTORS, INC.,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and
ANNE SCHWARTZ,
Third-Party Defendants,
and
OPIO BOAT MOON, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-0697

CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 3, 2015, I issued a summary judgment decision in this case. Defendant
Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (“Chubb”) has now brought it to my attention that I
inadvertently failed to address one issue raised in its summary judgment motion, the
question of whether Chubb owes plaintiffs additional compensation for mold remediation
costs. I address this issue now.1

1

I incorporate the facts and legal analysis from my original summary judgment
decision in this decision.

The appraisal awarded plaintiffs $88,063.41 for mold remediation expenses.
However, plaintiffs’ insurance policy only obligated Chubb to “pay up to a total of $10,000
. . . for mold remediation expenses” for each occurrence. Mortensen Aff. Ex. A, at 33 (ECF
No. 666-1); see id. at 18. Chubb has paid plaintiffs $10,000 for remediation expenses but
argues that it owes no more under the policy. Plaintiffs argue that Chubb still owes them
$20,000 because the mold remediation costs were incurred as a result of three separate
occurrences, for which they submitted three separate proofs of loss.
Chubb’s summary judgment argument on this issue is insufficiently developed, and
taking all inferences in favor of plaintiffs, as I must, I conclude that there is a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the mold remediation expenses were incurred as a result of
one occurrence or three separate occurrences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). This question must be answered by the fact finder.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for clarification (ECF No.
724) is GRANTED. Summary judgment on the issue of mold remediation expenses is
denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of March, 2015.

s/ Lynn Adelman
_____________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2