Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00834/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00834-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0834-WS-B

 )

CANNON HILL TIMBER INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay of this declaratory

judgment action imposed by Judge Pittman in May 2005 and to enter default judgment against

defendants Cannon Hill Timber, Inc., Cannon Hill Trucking, Inc. and Tiney Andress III, a/k/a

Tiney Andrews III. (Doc. 23).

Judge Pittman stayed this action “pending final judgment in the underlying Blackwell tort

action.” (Doc. 20 at 13). That action, according to the plaintiff herein, named as defendants

Cannon Hill Timber, Inc.; Cannon Hill Trucking, Inc.; Andress Trucking Co.; Tiney Andress,

Jr.; and Tiney Andress III. (Doc. 1 & Exhibits B-D). All of these, plus the plaintiff in the

underlying action, are defendants in this action.

The plaintiff’s motion recites that “the Underlying Action was resolved by a settlement

agreement among the parties thereto, and the Circuit Court entered an Order dismissing the

Underlying Action with prejudice.” (Doc. 23, ¶ 8). The exhibits on which the plaintiff relies,

however, are inadequate to establish that the underlying action has been resolved in its entirety. 

The only settlement agreements in evidence concern only the Cannon Hill defendants and State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. (Id., Exhibits C, D). The joint stipulation for

dismissal is signed only on behalf of defendant Cannon Hill Timber, Inc., (id., Exhibit B), and

the Court’s order of dismissal is likewise directed only to the underlying plaintiff’s case against

Cannon Hill Timber. (Id., Exhibit A). 

These exhibits date from September 2005. According to the plaintiff’s motion, the

underlying action was resolved “[o]n or about November 7, 2005.” (Doc. 23, ¶ 8). It thus may

Case 1:04-cv-00834-WS-B Document 24 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

be that the action, partially resolved in September 2005, reached final judgment in November

2005. The plaintiff, however, has failed to carry its burden of establishing this fact. 

Accordingly, the motion to lift stay and enter default judgment is denied, without prejudice to

the plaintiff’s ability to seek similar relief on a more adequate showing. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00834-WS-B Document 24 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2