Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05202/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05202-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Motorists Insurance Company
Plaintiff
American Re-Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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 parties submitted their papers on November 2 and November

5, 2007 but have not responded to the clerk's notices regarding

their failure to e-file the papers. As those notices state,

failure to e-file documents in a case designated for electronic

filing may result in the imposition of monetary or other sanctions

on a daily basis.

2Defendant also suggests that this issue can be decided by the

Court in a "miniature bench trial." However, as Plaintiff points

out, the resolution of a conflict between the ambiguous language of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Illinois corporation, as

successor-in-interest to Specialty

National Insurance Company, an

Illinois corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-5202 CW

ORDER

The parties in this case have submitted1 their pretrial

papers. In its trial brief, Defendant American Re-Insurance

Company (American Re) argues that Plaintiff American Motorists

Insurance Company's (AMICO) declaratory relief claim "can be

decided by dispositive pre-trial motion."2

 In effect, Defendant 

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 134 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

a contract and conflicting parol evidence is a question of fact.

2

proposes that it be allowed to file a further motion for summary

judgment just one week before the pretrial conference and nearly

three months after the cut-off for case dispositive motions. 

Plaintiff opposes and argues that it is has a right to have a

jury decide this claim. Plaintiff argues that "the construction of

the reinsurance contract at issue, can only be made with a

resolution of conflict between contradictory extrinsic evidence,

presenting a question of fact to be decided by the jury." 

Plaintiff's Trial Brief at 2. In particular, Plaintiff notes that

it intends to introduce correspondence with Defendant from shortly

before the reinsurance contract at issue in this case was executed

that shows that Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the

claim at issue in this case was covered by its own policy. 

Despite Defendant's lack of diligence in seeking to resolve

the case through dispositive motions, the Court cannot overlook the

potential for significant conservation of judicial resources. As

Defendant argues, if the Court were to rule in its favor on

Plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment, a jury would not need

to reach the remaining causes of action. If the Court finds that

the contract language is ambiguous and that there is a triable

question of fact regarding the interpretation of the contract in

light of the parole evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the case can

proceed to trial as scheduled. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant shall file a further

motion for summary judgment by Friday, November 9, 2007; Plaintiff

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 134 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

shall file an opposition by Friday, November 16, 2007; and

Defendant shall file a reply by Monday, November 19, 2007 at 

5:00 PM. All other dates in this case, including the pretrial

conference scheduled for Tuesday, November 13 at 2:00 PM, shall

remain as currently set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/7/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 134 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 134 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4