Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01001/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01001-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENSCRAFTERS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-1001 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 74, 81, 83]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant and Cross-Claimant Executive Risk Specialty

InsuranceCompany's("ERSIC") motion forsummary judgment against Defendant and Cross-ClaimantLiberty

Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Liberty") [Docket No. 74]. Having read and considered the arguments

presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court has serious concerns that ERSIC's

motion forsummary judgmentis either premature or, alternatively, thatERSIC is asking the Court to adjudicate

this matter in piecemeal fashion. 

Specifically, in the instant motion, ERSIC seeks a ruling from this Court declaring that either (1) the

2001-2002 ERSIC policy is excess to Liberty's six general liability policies; or (2) ERSIC is a co-primary

insurer. At the same time, however, ERSIC indicates that it intends to reform the 2001-2002 ERSIC policy,

but does not provide the Court with any argument or evidence in support of this purported defense. Since it

is a fundamentalconcept that insurance policies, like any other contract, are to be interpreted in such a way that

they effectuate the mutual intent of the parties, see Union OilCo. v. International Ins. Co., 37 Cal. App. 4th

Case 4:04-cv-01001-SBA Document 84 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The Court also notes that, in its opposition brief, Liberty has requested a continuance of the instant

motion pursuant to FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 56(f) so thatLiberty may conduct certain discovery relating

to itsoppositionofERSIC's motion. Liberty has also filed an objection to ERSIC's reply brief asking the Court

to strike portions ofthe reply brief[see Docket No. 83]. Additionally, Plaintiffs have filed a separate statement

asking the Court to continue the instant motion for summary judgment [see Docket No. 81]. In light of the

Court's decision to deny the instant motion without prejudice, Liberty's and Plaintiffs' requests and objections

are DENIED AS MOOT. 

2

930, 935 (1995), the evidence supporting ERSIC's reformation defense is directly relevant to the instantmotion

for summary judgment. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, this Court will not entertain ERSIC's

motion untilsuch time thatERSIC has clearly asserted all ofthe claims or defenses that it believes, in good faith,

entitle it to a judgment as a matter of law. 

Additionally, the Court is cognizant of the fact that ERSIC appears to have filed the instant motion

without engaging in a meaningful meet-and-confer with the opposing parties in this matter. See Declaration of

Hee Young Lee I.S.O. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Lee Decl.") at Exs. 1-4. Under this

Court's standing orders, parties are expected to meet and confer prior to filing any motion. ERSIC's failure

to meaningfully confer with Liberty with regard to the filing of this motion has significantly contributed to the

Court's concerns regarding the prematurity of the motion.1 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT ERSIC's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 74] is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent that ERSIC seeks to re-file its motion for summary

judgment, it may do so only after the close of discovery on July 1, 2005 but prior to the motion cut-off

deadline of September 13, 2005. ERSIC's renewed motion for summary judgment must assert all of the

theories it believes, in good faith, support its claim that it is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw on the excess

insurance issue, including its reformation defense if it still seeks to rely on that theory.

IT IF FURTHER ORDERED THAT Liberty's request for a continuance is DENIED AS MOOT.

Liberty's objection to ERSIC's reply brief [Docket No. 83] is also DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's request for a continuance of the instant motion and

request for leave to file briefing [Docket No. 81] are DENIED AS MOOT. However, if ERSIC re-files its

//

Case 4:04-cv-01001-SBA Document 84 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to file an opposition to the motion, if

appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties are directed to participate in a meaningfulmeet-andconfer prior to the filing of any further motions before this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6-6-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01001-SBA Document 84 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 3