Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05461/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, a New Jersey )

Corporation, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST,)

a Texas Corporation, et al., )

)

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________)

)

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST,)

 )

 Counter-Claimant, )

 )

v. )

 )

CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

 )

 Counter-Defendant. )

 )

CV F 99 5461 SMS

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

Due date for Defendant’s

Supplemental Brief:

August 5, 2005

Due date for Plaintiff’s

Responsive Supplemental Brief:

August 23, 2005

This matter was tried to the Court on September 20 and 21,

2004, and was submitted for decision. 

After the matter was submitted, the parties corresponded

with the Court concerning two matters. The Court has not received

any input from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the admissibility of

the deposition of Satvinder Singh in light of the post-trial

Case 1:99-cv-05461-SMS Document 263 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

correspondence from Defendant’s counsel concerning the inaccuracy

of defense counsel’s representations regarding the unavailability

of Satvinder Singh as a witness. 

The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ evidence

and briefing and has determined that serial supplemental briefing

by the parties is needed with respect to the following:

1) construction of the contract (the ICW policy) pursuant to

and in light of California law, including but not limited to the

pertinent canons of construction and statutes, with respect to

whether Defendant must show intentional misrepresentation or

concealment in order to establish a defense, or whether negligent

or even innocent misrepresentation would constitute a defense;

such briefing should include, but should not be limited to, a

discussion of the applicability of Mitchell v. United National

Insurance Co., 127 Cal.App.4th 457 (2005), and should identify

and analyze any holdings from California as well as from other

jurisdictions in cases analogous to the present case; and

2) whether, in light of the correspondence received after

the trial, the deposition of Satvinder Singh is admissible.

With respect to the second matter, if the parties are

willing to stipulate to the admissibility of the deposition, then

a signed stipulation filed no later than August 23, 2005, is

acceptable in lieu of supplemental briefing.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that 

1) Defendant SHALL FILE a supplemental brief addressing the

foregoing no later than August 5, 2005; and

2) Plaintiff SHALL FILE a responsive supplemental brief

addressing the foregoing no later than August 23, 2005.

Case 1:99-cv-05461-SMS Document 263 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05461-SMS Document 263 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3