Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00292/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00292-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

 2 This court’s August 31, 2005 denied in part Defendant Moreland’s motion for summary

judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, specifically holding that it mattered under

which prong the insured was found in insane as to whether the insured’s act constituted an intentional act

(an uncovered occurrence) or an unintentional act (a covered occurrence).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALLSTATE CASUALTY INSURANCE

CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY GRIFFIN and MELISSA

MORELAND,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05- 0292 PVT

ORDER DENYING MORELAND’S

MOTION TO PERMIT AN

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

On November 15, 2005 the parties appeared for hearing on Defendant Moreland’s

motion for an order permitting an interlocutory appeal.1

 Based on the briefs and

arguments presented, and for the reasons set forth below, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Moreland’s motion is DENIED.

Moreland seeks certification to take an interlocutory appeal on this court’s August 31,

2005 order,2 specifically to resolve the question of whether satisfying either prong of

Case 5:05-cv-00292-PVT Document 58 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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 As stated in this court’s August 31, 2005 order, under California’s two-prong insanity

test, a person is deemed legally insane if he or she is either: 1) “incapable of knowing or understanding

the nature and quality of his or her act;” or 2) “incapable of knowing or understanding that his or her act

is wrong.”

 4 See infra note 3.

 5 The stipulated facts, filed with the cross motions for summary judgment, stipulate that

Griffin was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal proceeding. The parties did not

stipulate that Griffin was insane when he attacked Moreland. Nor does Moreland argue that Allstate is

ORDER, page 2

California’s insanity test3

 is sufficient to bring an insured’s act within coverage under Allstate’s

Homeowner’s Policy. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), this court has discretion to certify an issue for interlocutory

appeal if: (1) the issue is a controlling question of law; (2) the issue is one for which substantial

ground for difference of opinion exists; and (3) an immediate appeal of the court’s order relative

to the issue at hand may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Id.

Furthermore, the burden is on the moving party to show “extraordinary circumstances” to justify

departure from “the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final

judgment.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982), aff’d sub

nom., Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v.

Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978)). 

Controlling Question of Law

A question of law is controlling if it is dispositive as to the case before the court and

makes further litigation of the matter unnecessary. See APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint

Communications Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 90, 95 (D.D.C. 2003). The question of whether satisfying

either prong of California’s insanity test4

 is sufficient to bring an insured’s act within coverage

(rendering inoperative an intentional act exclusion clause) may become a controlling question of

law if Griffin is found to have understood the nature and consequences of his act in attacking

Moreland. However, as this question of law stands now, it does not presently control the

litigation because there has been no factual finding in this action as to Griffin’s state of mind, nor

do the stipulated facts establish Griffin’s state of mind.5

 

Case 5:05-cv-00292-PVT Document 58 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

collaterally estopped from arguing that Griffin was not insane at the time of the attack. 

ORDER, page 3

Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion

Moreland has abundantly established the two lines of authority with regard to the

aforementioned question of law. See, e.g., Prasad v. Allstate Insurance Co., 644 So.2d 992, 994

(1994). See also Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. Lyons, 131 Ariz. 237 (1982) (citing, inter alia,

Congregation of Rodef Sholom v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 91 Cal.App.3d 690 (1979), which

posits the view that if an injury results from an insane act, the intentional act exclusion clause is

inoperative). Substantial ground for difference of opinion exists when there are court splits on a

controlling question of law. See Huangyan Imp. And Exp. Corp. v. Nature’s Farm Prods., 370

F.Supp. 2d 993, 1005 (N.D. Cal., 2005); see also Kirkbride v. Con’tl Cas. Co., 707 F.Supp. 429,

433 (N.D. Cal. 1989); see also APCC Servs., Inc. at 107.

Immediate Appeal May Materially Advance the Ultimate Termination of the Litigation

Moreland has not established that an immediate appeal might materially advance the

ultimate termination of the litigation. If the appellate court were to hold in Moreland’s favor,

this action would be remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine Griffin’s

state of mind. Thus, while an interlocutory appellate decision may serve to focus the discovery

and adjudication of the issue of Griffin’s state of mind, the case would not be over, contrary to

Moreland’s contention.

Conclusion:

Because the issue for which Moreland seeks immediate appeal arguably satisfies only

one of the three requirements for certification under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), Moreland’s motion is

DENIED.

Dated: 1/5/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00292-PVT Document 58 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 3