Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02670/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02670-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark H. Goldberg; Sherry R. Goldberg;

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Pacific Indemnity Company, a California

corporation; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2670-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and Request for

Clarification (Doc. #637). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s Order regarding

submission of an estoppel theory to the jury. Plaintiffs also seek clarification of the Court’s

order regarding their “duty to cooperate.” The Court will deny the reconsideration portion

of the motion, but will provide the requested clarification. 

In its Order on Pacific’s Request for Clarification (Doc. #636), the Court stated that

it would not submit an estoppel theory to the jury because the Goldbergs had failed to create

a triable issue of fact as to reliance. The Court did rule that it would submit a waiver theory.

The Court sees no reason to alter its ruling on the estoppel theory and therefore denies the

motion for reconsideration.

The Court does wish to clarify its ruling regarding the duty to cooperate. The Court

did not capitalize “Duty to Cooperate” in its Order. In mentioning the duty to cooperate

provisions (Doc. #636, p.1), the Court did not refer to a specific Duty to Cooperate provision,

Case 2:05-cv-02670-JAT Document 719 Filed 07/18/08 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 -

but rather the express contractual duties that Pacific argues could fall under the banner of

“cooperation”, for instance, the duty to present the property. The Court did not intend to rule

that Pacific may argue an implied duty to cooperate or that it could argue that Plaintiffs

violated the “Cooperation Clause” found in the third-party liability portion of the policy.

To clarify, Pacific may argue that Plaintiffs’ failure to meet specific contractual

conditions to coverage or the existence of an exclusion voids coverage under the policy.

Pacific cannot argue for an implied duty to cooperate as a defense to the breach of contract

claim. The Court views an implied duty to cooperate as something more than the general

duty of good faith implied into every contract. Nor can Pacific argue that the Cooperation

Clause found in the liability coverage section of policy applies to this case. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the reconsideration portion of the Motion for

Reconsideration and Request for Clarification (Doc. #637) and GRANTING the request for

clarification.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02670-JAT Document 719 Filed 07/18/08 Page 2 of 2