The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company
2:21-cv-01344
| W.D. Wash. | Jan 20, 2023Background
- Parties: Plaintiff Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. and Defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. dispute coverage arising from underlying litigation that settled on June 14, 2022.
- Procedural posture: After an earlier stay, parties exchanged pleadings in late 2022 and jointly moved to bifurcate duty-to-defend and duty-to-indemnify issues and to stay indemnity-related discovery (Dkts. 37, 38).
- Parties represent the duty to defend can be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment based largely on agreed facts and without expert testimony, and that a defense ruling may moot or simplify indemnity issues.
- Court applied its Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) discretion and related authority, emphasizing judicial economy, avoidance of unnecessary expense, and potential to resolve the case efficiently.
- Ruling: Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida granted the joint motions, set a briefing schedule for cross-motions on the duty to defend, and stayed rebuttal expert disclosures and indemnity-related discovery until the duty-to-defend is decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to bifurcate duty to defend from duty to indemnify | Bifurcation appropriate to resolve dispositive duty-to-defend first; promotes efficiency | Agrees; seeks bifurcation to avoid unnecessary indemnity discovery | Granted: court bifurcated the issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) |
| Whether duty to defend can be resolved on cross-motions without expert testimony | Duty to defend can be decided on summary judgment using agreed facts and without experts | Agrees; both parties will file cross-motions limited to duty to defend and factual stipulations | Granted: court authorized cross-motions on duty to defend without expert participation |
| Whether to stay indemnity-related discovery and expert disclosures pending resolution of defense issue | Stay indemnity discovery and expert deadlines because indemnity may become moot or be simplified after defense ruling | Agrees; requests stay to conserve resources | Granted: rebuttal expert disclosures and indemnity discovery stayed until duty to defend is resolved |
| Scheduling of briefing and noting dates for cross-motions | Propose a briefing timetable to promptly resolve duty-to-defend motions | Agrees to proposed schedule | Court set deadlines and noting date for cross-motions (see docket schedule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Co., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (bifurcation appropriate when resolution of one issue could be dispositive)
- Drennan v. Maryland Cas. Co., 366 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Nev. 2005) (favoring bifurcation where it conserves resources)
- O'Malley v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 776 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1985) (discussing standards for bifurcation)
- In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may extend filing deadlines for good cause)