Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00911/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00911-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph P. Kealy, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0911-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 81) and

memorandum in support (doc. 103), defendants’ response (doc. 110), and plaintiffs’ reply

(doc. 116). We also have before us defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 82),

memorandum in support (doc. 120), plaintiffs’ response (doc. 121), and defendants’ reply

(doc. 122). 

The parties have presented cross-motions for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-

341.01, which provides that, “[i]n any contested action arising out of contract . . . the court

may award the successful party reasonable attorney’s fees.” The court makes this

determination by considering the “totality of the circumstances and the relative success of

the litigants.” McAlister v. Citibank, 171 Ariz. 207, 216, 829 P.2d 1253, 1262 (Ct. App.

1992). If the resolution of the action leaves no clear victor, the court may find there are no

successful parties. See Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse, 181 Ariz. 36, 41, 887 P.2d 566, 571

Case 2:05-cv-00911-FJM Document 123 Filed 09/12/07 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 -

(Ct. App. 1994) (court has discretion to determine that there was no “clear successful party”

where the verdict was for one party in part and for the other in part). 

This action involved insurance coverage for two underlying lawsuits–the “Wojtunik”

and “Delgado” lawsuits–as well as claims for bad faith and punitive damages in connection

with both lawsuits. On January 17, 2007, we found in favor of plaintiffs on one claim,

concluding that there was coverage for the Wojtunik lawsuit, and in favor of defendants on

the other claim, concluding that there was no coverage for the Delgado lawsuit (doc. 35).

The parties thereafter stipulated to the dismissal of the bad faith and punitive damages

claims. 

Because the judgment was in favor of plaintiffs on one claim and in favor of

defendants on the other claim, neither party is the “successful party” within the meaning of

the statute. Although there is not complete identity of parties on each of the claims, there is

significant overlap in legal theories. Neither party makes an effort to accurately allocate fees

between the two claims–plaintiffs simply assert a claim for all fees incurred, while

defendants suggest reducing their fees by half–making it impossible to reasonably

“apportion[ ] costs between winning and losing efforts.” See Watson Constr. Co. v. Amfac

Mortg. Corp., 124 Ariz. 570, 585, 606 P.2d 421, 436 (Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we

conclude that there is no clear successful party and decline to award attorney’s fees. Each

party shall bear their own fees and costs.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees

(doc. 81), and DENYING defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 82). 

DATED this 12th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00911-FJM Document 123 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2