Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000410.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:49:12+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Ranburn Corp. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.
Ranburn Corp. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE AND INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, MERIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES n/k/a STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ranburn Corporation d/b/a Ranburn Cleaners' (“Ranburn”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on March 29, 2017 (DE #71); Defendant Meridian Mutual Insurance Companies', n/k/a State Auto Insurance Companies (“State Auto”), Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on May 26, 2017 (DE #90); Defendant Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company's (“AGCIC”) Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on May 26, 2017 (DE #93); Defendant/Counter-Claimant National Fire and Indemnity Exchange's (“NIE”) Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on May 26, 2017 (DE #94). For the reasons set forth below, Ranburn's motion for partial summary judgment (DE #71) is DENIED and State Auto's, AGCIC's, and NIE's cross-motions for partial summary judgment (DE #90, DE #93, and DE #94) are GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in favor of defendants AGCIC, NIE and State Auto declaring that AGCIC, NIE and State Auto have the right to select and retain the environmental consultant to assist in the defense of the underlying claim brought by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management against Ranburn and conduct the response action at no cost to Ranburn.
Ranburn filed this suit against the defendants AGCIC, NIE, and State Auto (together, “the Insurers”) to resolve a dispute as to who possesses the right to select the environmental consultant to assist in the defense of an underlying environmental claim brought by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) against Ranburn. Ranburn moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the Insurers waived or otherwise forfeited their right to select Ranburn's defense team, including the environmental consultant. Each of the Insurers filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this issue. The motions have been fully brief and are ripe for review.
Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. To determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the Court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely on allegations in her own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). “[I]nferences relying on mere speculation or conjecture will not suffice.” Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The party with the burden of proof on an issue can obtain a summary judgment “only where the evidence is so one- sided that it points inescapably” in the movant's favor, and “every reasonable jury” would decide that the movant has met its burden of proof. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 899 F.Supp.2d 820, 824 (N.D. Ind. 2012) (citations omitted). If the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of an essential element on which he bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is proper. Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006). “[W]hen cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, the [c]ourt must take a dual perspective: [e]ach movant has the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact on its own motion.” Grabach v. Evans, 196 F.Supp.2d 746, 747 (N.D. Ind. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . “property damage” . . . to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend any “suit” seeking those damages. We may at our discretion investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.
c. You and any other involved insured must. . .
(3) Cooperate with us in the investigation, or settlement of the claim or defense against the “suit”; and . . .
d. No insureds will, except at their own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without our consent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.