Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02097-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

GOLDEN BEAR MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION AND DELTA 

ADJUSTING COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYD’S LONDON, SUBSCRIBING 

TO POLICY No. 50006700119,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-02097-JAM-SCR

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AND 

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court are Golden Bear Management Corp.’s

(“Plaintiff”) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London’s 

(“Defendant”) cross-motions for summary judgment. See

Plaintiff’s Mot., ECF No. 43; Defendant’s Mot., ECF No. 48. The 

motions are fully briefed. See Plaintiff’s Reply and Opp’n, ECF 

No. 54; Defendant’s Reply, ECF No. 61. For the following 

reasons, the Court DENIES both motions in their entirety.1

In the cross motions for summary judgment, the parties 

submitted a total of 225 “Undisputed Facts” in support of their 

1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for November 19, 2024.

Case 2:22-cv-02097-JAM-SCR Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 2
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

cross-motions, not including Plaintiff’s improperly submitted 

additional 37 facts. See Defendant’s Response to Statement of 

Undisputed Facts, ECF No. 51; Plaintiff’s Response to Statement 

of Undisputed Facts, ECF No. 55. Of these 225 facts, 94 are

disputed in whole or in part by the parties. Many of these facts 

go to the core of each party’s cross-motion. For example, the 

parties raise a genuine issue as to whether Plaintiff’s 

settlement constituted a loss under the policy. See Defendant’s 

Response to Statement of Undisputed Fact 13; Plaintiff’s Response 

to Statement of Undisputed Fact 144. The parties further dispute 

whether Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of a potential claim 

within the policy period. See Defendant’s Response to Statement 

of Undisputed Facts 37 and 38; Plaintiff’s Response to Statement 

of Undisputed Fact 161. Finally, the parties present a genuine 

dispute as to whether Defendant needed to consent before 

Plaintiff settled. See Defendant’s Response to Statement of Fact 

19; Plaintiff’s Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts 188 and 

189. These are just a few examples of the many genuine disputes 

of material fact that remain in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s 

cross-motions for summary judgment in their entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024

Case 2:22-cv-02097-JAM-SCR Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2