Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company
2:15-cv-01420
| D. Nev. | Jun 3, 2016Background
- Steven Barr, an employee of Huron Consulting, rented an Avis vehicle under a Rate Agreement between Huron and Avis and was involved in a crash that led to a $1,000,000 settlement.
- Avis contributed $100,000; Travelers (Huron’s insurer) paid the remaining $900,000 on behalf of Huron and Barr.
- Amica, which insured Barr personally, refused to contribute to the settlement, prompting Travelers to sue Amica for equitable contribution and declaratory relief.
- Amica moved to dismiss, arguing Travelers’ contribution claim is time-barred and that Travelers’ policy is primary for any liability assumed under the Rate Agreement.
- The court considered documentary evidence (settlement date and dismissal stipulation) without converting the motion to summary judgment, because authenticity was undisputed and the documents were integral to the timeliness dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for Travelers' contribution claim | Six-year limitations under N.R.S. § 11.190(1)(b) because rights arise from written policies/contracts | One-year contribution period under N.R.S. § 17.285(3) (claims after final judgment against tortfeasor) | Neither statute applies; contribution is equitable (implied by law) and governed by four-year limitations for actions not founded on a writing (N.R.S. § 11.190(2)(c)); Travelers’ suit was timely. |
| Whether Travelers is effectively a tortfeasor (thus triggering §17.285(3)) after paying settlement and subrogating | Travelers did not argue tortfeasor status; asserted contribution rights against co-insurer | Amica argued Travelers stepped into Barr/Huron’s shoes per N.R.S. §17.275 and so is a tortfeasor | Court rejected Amica’s characterization; §17.285(3) applies only to contribution among tortfeasors and is inapplicable here. |
| Whether Travelers pleaded a plausible equitable contribution claim | Travelers alleged common insured, same risk, and that both policies provided excess coverage for rented autos; alleged Rate Agreement makes Travelers’ policy possibly primary in some respects | Amica argued Travelers’ policy provisions make Travelers primary, precluding contribution as a matter of law | Court found Travelers plausibly alleged the three elements for equitable contribution and that factual questions about primary/excess status remain; dismissal inappropriate. |
| Whether court should consider outside documents attached to motion to dismiss | Travelers argued consideration would convert motion to summary judgment | Amica presented settlement/dismissal documents; Travelers did not dispute authenticity | Court treated documents as integral/authentic and considered them under Rule 12(d) without converting to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saylor v. Arcotta, 225 P.3d 1276 (Nev. 2010) (Nevada holds § 17.285 applies only to contribution among multiple tortfeasors)
- Hudson Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2010) (insurer who pays first may seek equitable contribution from co-insurer covering same risk)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 65 Cal. App. 4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (equitable contribution implied by law to require insurers to share losses fairly)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible entitlement to relief)
- Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 252 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2011) (unambiguous insurance-policy provisions are enforced according to plain meaning)