Evanston Insurance Company v. Premium Assignment Corporation
8:11-cv-02630
M.D. Fla.Jul 3, 2012Background
- Evanston issued a physicians professional liability policy to Dr. Dave and N.B. Dave, M.D., P.A., for 2002–2003.
- Premium Assignment financed 75% of the premium; Dr. Dave paid 25% and Premium Assignment acted as attorney-in-fact with power to cancel for nonpayment.
- Dr. Dave died January 5, 2003; estates are probated in Hillsborough County, Florida.
- Premium Assignment failed to receive Dr. Dave’s premium on January 10, 2003; a cancellation notice was sent January 15–February 4, 2003, and Evanston later reflected a January 5, 2003 cancellation date.
- DeLoreys’ medical malpractice claim against Dr. Dave was filed September 5, 2003; the DeLoreys and the Estate settled for $2.4 million with an assignment to the DeLoreys of Estate rights against Evanston.
- Evanston later settled with the DeLoreys for $500,000 and Evanston’s defense and indemnity obligations were disputed; Evanston sued Premium Assignment in November 2011 seeking indemnity, equitably subrogation, and equitable contribution.
- Premium Assignment moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing collateral estoppel from a state court case excused Evanston’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evanston's claims are precluded by collateral estoppel | Evanston argues state court findings are not dispositive of all current claims. | Premium Assignment contends state court ruling forecloses Evanston’s claims. | Denied; collateral estoppel not established due to incomplete record. |
| Whether the motion should be treated as summary judgment given extrinsic materials | N/A | Motion relies on outside state-court documents; should be summary judgment if appropriate. | Denied; court cannot convert to summary judgment without a complete record. |
| Whether the court should judicially notice the state court order | Rule 201 materials may be noticed for subject matter only. | Judicial notice supports collateral estoppel reasoning. | Denied; court will not take judicial notice of the state-court order's factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fla. Residential Prop. & Cas. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 137 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard for judgment on the pleadings akin to Rule 12(b)(6))
- United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994) (judicial notice limited to recognizing the subject matter, not the factual findings)