Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02051/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02051-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Britz Fertilizers, Inc.
Plaintiff
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRITZ FERTILIZERS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

1:10-cv-02051-AWI-MJS

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL 

ORDER

On June 19, 2015, this Court issued a pretrial order summarizing, among other things, the 

parties positions and the Court’s holdings on summary judgment. That order instructed that any 

objection thereto had to be filed within ten days of the issuance of that order. Doc. 138 at § XII; 

Local Rule 283; Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. On June 29, 2015, Britz filed an objection to the Court’s 

summary of how liability can be found under the umbrella policy. Nationwide filed its response 

on the same date.

The language in the pretrial order giving rise to this dispute is as follows:

In summary, as to the breach of contract claim, in order for the CUP to cover the 

net loss in the underlying action, Britz must prove that an unexpected, unforeseen, 

or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or an unknown 

cause – which is not otherwise excluded – was, at least, an independent or 

concurrent cause of the property damage in the underlying case. If Plaintiff cannot 

prove a qualifying occurrence, then whether an exclusion applies is irrelevant.

Doc. 138 at § V(A)(3).

Case 1:10-cv-02051-AWI-MJS Document 145 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Britz objects that the Court’s summary fails to recognize that Nationwide bears the 

burden of proving that an exclusion applies to preclude coverage, insofar as the “which is not 

otherwise excluded” language seems to place the burden upon Britz. Doc. 143 at 2.1 Nationwide 

has conceded that it must prove that an exclusion applies if Britz makes a showing that its claim 

otherwise falls within the scope of the policy. Doc. 144 at 1-2. 

To settle any lingering doubt, with regard to its breach of contract claim, Britz must 

prove that an occurrence – within the meaning of the policy – took place. Then, if Britz so 

proves, Nationwide must prove that coverage for the occurrence is otherwise excluded under one 

of the applicable exclusions to defeat that claim.

2

With that clarification in mind, specifically noting that the parties are in agreement that it 

is the insurer’s burden to prove, not the insured’s burden to disprove, the applicability of an 

exclusion, the Court declines to modify its pretrial order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Britz proposes the following alternate summary: 

In summary, as to the breach of contract claim, in order for the CUP to cover the net loss in the 

underlying action, Britz must prove that an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or 

consequence from either a known or unknown cause was, at least, an independent or concurrent 

cause of the property damage in the underlying case. To the extent Nationwide contends that one 

or more exclusions bar coverage, Nationwide has the burden of proving the exclusion applies to 

preclude coverage.

Doc. 143 at 2.

2 The Court notes that this order does not modify any part of the Court’s prior summary judgment order or its 

summary thereof in the pretrial order.

Case 1:10-cv-02051-AWI-MJS Document 145 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 2