Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01430/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01430-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Enterprising Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Sunwest

Employer Services, an Arizona corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

National Union Fire Insurance Company o

Pittsburgh, PA, a Pennsylvania

corporation,

Defendant.

No. CV-10-01430-PHX-REJ

OPINION AND ORDER

In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff Enterprising Solutions, Inc., dba Sunwest

Employer Services, filed this action against defendant National Union Fire Insurance

Company in Arizona state court, alleging claimsfor declaratory relief, breach of contract, and

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant removed the action

to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

The action is now before the court on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment

and defendant’s motion for summary judgment (## 27, 29). Both motions address only

plaintiff’s first claim, for declaratory relief. For the reasons stated, I deny both motions.

STANDARD

Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the

moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-moving party

must go beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Celotex Corp.

Case 2:10-cv-01430-REJ Document 47 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 3
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A scintilla of evidence, or evidence that is merely

colorable or not significantly probative, does not present a genuine issue of material fact.

United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge, 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989).

The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also T.W. Elec. Service v.

Pacific Elec. Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Reasonable doubts as to the

existence of a material factual issue are resolved against the moving party. T.W. Elec.

Service, 809 F.2d at 631. Inferences drawn from facts are viewed in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party. Id. at 630-31.

The standard of review is the same for cross-motions as individual motions for

summary judgment: “‘The court must consider each motion independently and, when

evaluating each, the court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.’” Winans v. Starbucks Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 2693172 at *2

(S.D.N.Y.July 11, 2011)(quoting Morales v. Quintel Entm’t, Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir.

2001)); see also, e.g., Nipponkoa Insurance Co. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., ___

F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 2620375 (S.D. Ohio July 5, 2011).

DISCUSSION

The parties have filed extensive briefing outlining their respective views of the

applicability of the coverage and exclusion provisions of the several insurance policies at

issue. I have thoroughly reviewed all submissions, undertaken independent research, and

remain unpersuaded that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Both parties

agree that there are at least 550 claims pending in one form or another against plaintiff

arising out of plaintiff’s admitted failure to properly calculate the necessary contributions to

fully fund the Sunwest Employer Services Group Medical and Dental Plan (“Sunwest Plan”),

which caused plaintiff to terminate the Sunwest Plan effective August 19, 2009. See

Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ¶¶10-11,

PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 2:10-cv-01430-REJ Document 47 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 3
14-15. Lacking, however, are agreed or undisputed facts as to what those 550 claimants

assert against plaintiff, and lacking is evidence establishing, as a matter of law, that all the

claims are in fact valid ERISA claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

In sum, I do not find summary judgment to be appropriate for either party.

Consequently, both motions (## 27, 29) are denied.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2011.

/s/ Robert E. Jones

ROBERT E. JONES

United States District Judge

PAGE 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 2:10-cv-01430-REJ Document 47 Filed 07/27/11 Page 3 of 3