Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01954/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01954-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

Company, and Travelers Indemnity

Company of America,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Lexington Insurance Company, 

American Home Insurance Company,

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company,

Defendants. 

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Cross-Claimant,

v.

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company,

American Safety Indemnity Company,

Lexington Insurance Company, 

American Home Insurance Company,

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company,

Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1954-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 394 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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 -

American Home Insurance Company and

Commerce & Industry Insurance

Company,

Counter/Cross-Claimants,

v.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

Company, Travelers Indemnity Company

of America, Ohio Casualty Insurance

Company, Maryland Casualty Company, 

Zurich American Insurance Company,

and American Guarantee & Liability

Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Defendants.

Lexington Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Claimant,

v.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Charter Oak Fire Insurance

Company, Travelers Indemnity Company

of America, Ohio Casualty Insurance

Company, Maryland Casualty Company, 

Zurich American Insurance Company,

and American Guarantee & Liability

Insurance Company,

Counter/Cross-Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Before the Court is an unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief

submitted by Del Webb Corporation, Del Webb Communities, Inc., Del Webb’s Home

Construction, Inc., and Pulte Homes, Inc. n/k/a PulteGroup, Inc. (collectively “Del

Webb”). (Doc. 389.) Having reviewed the motion, the Court will grant Del Webb the

opportunity to file a brief as amicus curiae. 

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 394 Filed 10/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Standard of Review

As noted by Del Webb, a district court has broad discretion to permit individuals

or entities to participate in a case as amici curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260

(9th Cir.1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct.

2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Though not a party to the case, an amicus curiae serves to

provide assistance in a case of general interest, supplement the efforts of counsel in the

case, and draw the court's attention to legal arguments that have escaped consideration.

Miller–Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir.1982); See

Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.1986). 

Discussion

Del Webb contends that it has spent “significant time and energy working with its

additional insurers to develop a mutually agreeable allocation of unreimbursed...defense

costs” to no avail and thus moves the Court to allow Del Webb to file an amicus brief.

(Doc. 389 at 3.) Indeed, the parties have forced the Court to expend vast resources to

decide each party’s duty to defend--a relatively simple legal issue. On August 15, 2014,

almost three years from the Plaintiff’s original complaint (Doc. 1), the Court declared 

that all parties remaining in the action had a duty to defend Del Webb in proportion to

their respective policy limits quotients as described by that Order. (Doc. 381 at 13.) In

two separate motions, the parties now move to vacate the Court’s ruling. (Docs. 384;

386.) The parties also submit a tentative settlement agreement to the Court to which all

but one of the parties have agreed. (Doc 386-1.) Thus, despite the Court’s Order and,

evidently, the parties’ subsequent settlement talks, (Docs. 381; 368) the parties continue

to dispute their liability. Meanwhile, Del Webb continues to cover costs it believes one or

more of the providers in this action should pay. Good cause showing,

///

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 394 Filed 10/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEARBY ORDERED GRANTING Del Webb’s Motion for Leave to File

Amicus Brief Opposing Efforts to Vacate this Court’s Order Dated August 15, 2014.

(Doc. 389). Del Webb is granted 21 days from the Order to file its brief. All relevant local

rules shall apply. 

DATED the 8th of October, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01954-SMM Document 394 Filed 10/08/14 Page 4 of 4