Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00734/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00734-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Columbus Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Wilmington Trust NA,

Defendant.

No. CV-21-00734-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

On August 11, 2022, this Court stayed the present matter pending the Arizona 

Supreme Court’s resolution of the following certified question: “Does Arizona law 

permit an insurer to challenge the validity of a life insurance policy based on a lack of 

insurable interest after the expiration of the two-year contestability period required by 

A.R.S. § 20-1204?” (Doc. 103). The Court permitted Defendant Wilmington Trust NA

(“Defendant”) to file an Amended Answer (Doc. 105) notwithstanding the stay. 

(Doc. 104). On July 27, 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court answered the certified 

question in the negative. (Docs. 108; 110). So, the Court lifted the stay. (Doc. 109). In 

light of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision, the parties stipulated that the sole 

remaining claim in this matter is Defendant’s counterclaim for bad faith. (Doc. 111). 

The Court accordingly dismissed all other claims and counterclaims from this action. 

(Doc. 112). 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company’s 

Case 2:21-cv-00734-DJH Document 117 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 3
- 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

(“Plaintiff”) “Motion for a More Definite Statement” (Doc. 113)1regarding Defendant’s 

Amended Counterclaim for insurance bad faith. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s bad faith 

counterclaim is unintelligible and confusing. (Id. at 6–8). Defendant disagrees that any 

clarification is needed but acknowledges that “some of the allegations in the [Amended 

Counterclaim] are now irrelevant in light of the Court’s Order dismissing all other 

claims.” (Doc. 114 at 4). Thus, Defendant seeks to file a proposed second amended 

counterclaim as attached to their Response. (Doc. 114-1).

Given the significant changes in the claims and counterclaims at issue, the Court 

will grant Defendant’s request for an amendment and therefore and deny Plaintiff’s 

Motion for a More Definite Statement as moot. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Wilmington Trust NA’s request to file a second 

amended counterclaim is granted. By October 9, 2023, Defendant shall file a clean 

version of their second amended counterclaim as proposed at Doc. 114-1. Should 

Plaintiff determine that more discovery is necessary as a result of the second amended 

counterclaim, it may file a motion to open limited discovery and extend any other 

relevant deadlines. Such discovery shall be limited to the issues raised by the second 

amended counterclaim.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company’s 

“Motion for a More Definite Statement” (Doc. 113) is denied as moot.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay the Dispositive 

1 The matter is fully briefed. Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 114) and Plaintiff filed a 

Reply (Doc. 115).

2 The Court cautions Plaintiff that the means for seeking clarification of Defendant’s bad 

faith insurance theories are more properly addressed during discovery as opposed to a

motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Federal Rules require a pleader to 

serve only a short, plain statement showing an entitlement to relief; accordingly, motions 

for a more definite statement are generally disfavored when the level of detail sought is 

more properly ascertained in discovery. See e.g., Renfrow v. BDP Innovative Chem. Co., 

2015 WL 13036933, *1 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2015) (denying motion where ambiguity

regarding timing of breach could be clarified in discovery); Famolare, Inc. v. Edison 

Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F.Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1991) ( “where the information sought 

by the moving party is available and/or properly sought through discovery the motion 

[for a motion definite statement] should be denied”). 

Case 2:21-cv-00734-DJH Document 117 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Motion Deadline Pending Columbus Life’s Motion for More Definite Statement 

(Doc. 116) is granted in that the dispositive motion deadline in this matter is extended to 

November 3, 2023. The remainder of the Court’s Order (Doc. 20) is otherwise 

affirmed. 

Dated this 5th day of October, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-00734-DJH Document 117 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 3