PN II, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company
2:20-cv-01383
| D. Nev. | Jul 21, 2025Background
- PN II, Inc. (Pulte Homes) sued National Fire & Marine Insurance (National Fire) in Nevada federal court, alleging wrongful denial of insurance coverage and breach of the duty to defend and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- National Fire filed a counterclaim against Pulte, and also a third-party complaint against Contractors Insurance Company of North America (CICNA), alleging CICNA was the primary insurer and seeking contribution/reimbursement for a payment it made.
- CICNA moved to exclude evidence regarding National Fire’s contribution claims and to bifurcate the trial; Pulte moved to exclude evidence regarding National Fire’s duty to indemnify; National Fire sought leave to file a sur-reply.
- The key dispute centers on whether National Fire’s $267,685.21 payment was an indemnity or consequential damages payment, and whether CICNA or National Fire was the primary insurer.
- The case also considers the relevance of evidence related to insurance coverage, the reasonableness of National Fire’s refusal to settle, and the effect of alleged collusion between Pulte and CICNA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding contribution evidence/argument (CICNA) | Contribution is irrelevant; only consequential damages possible | Contribution claim valid if payment by National Fire was indemnity | Denied; factual dispute exists re: purpose of payment |
| Reimbursement for $267,685.21 payment | Payment was for consequential damages, not subject to contribution | Payment was indemnity or for non-covered claim, so reimbursement allowed | Not appropriate for summary judgment; factual dispute |
| Contribution for collusion defense | Contribution not available for damages due to own breach | If collusion, can seek contribution from colluders | Summary judgment granted; collusion is a defense, not claim |
| Excluding evidence on duty to indemnify (Pulte) | Indemnity evidence irrelevant after dismissal of indemnity claim | Coverage evidence still relevant to other defenses/claims | Granted in part: Not relevant to duty to defend, but relevant elsewhere |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (inferences on summary judgment)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (sua sponte summary judgment by court)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 212 P.3d 318 (factors for insurer bad faith/failure to settle)
- Arminas Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 658 F. Supp. 3d 883 (interpretation of insurance policy is a question of law)