Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Beach Mart, Inc. et al
| Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company |
| Beach Mart, Inc. and L&L Wings, Inc. |
| 2:2014cv00008 |
| February 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Northern Division Office |
| DARE |
| James C. Fox |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
265
JUDGMENT in favor of Beach Mart, Inc. against Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED for the reasons detailed in the court's September 30, 2022, order, Pennsylvania N ational Mutual Casualty Insurance Company's claims for declaration of non-coverage under the insurance policies are dismissed as to L&L Wings, Inc.'s original counterclaims, and Beach Mart, Inc.'s claim seeking a declaration of coverag e and establishing a duty to defend against L&L Wings, Inc.'s original counterclaims under the insurance policies is granted. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company was obligated under the insurance policies to defend Beach Mar t, Inc. against L&L Wings, Inc.'s original counterclaims.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED for the reasons detailed in the court's September 30, 2022, order, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company's claims for declaration of non-coverage under the insurance policies are granted as to L&L Wings, Inc.'s amended counterclaims, and Beach Mart's claim seeking a declaration of coverage and establishing a duty to defend against L&L Wings, Inc.' ;s amended counterclaims under the insurance policies is dismissed. Beach Mart, Inc.'s duty to defend under the insurance policies terminated upon the October 3, 2014, dismissal order in the underlying action, and the duty was not retriggered by L&L Wings, Inc.'s filing of its amended counterclaims on February 23, 2017.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED for the reasons detailed in the court's September 30, 2022, order, that the part of Pennsylvania National Mutual Casu alty Insurance Companys claim seeking declaratory judgment that it has no duty to indemnify is denied as moot.It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED for the reasons detailed in the court's September 30, 2022, order, that the following pa rts of Beach Mart Inc.'s counterclaims are dismissed: counterclaim III (breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); counterclaim IV (unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)(e), (g), (h), (m), and (n)). It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED for the reasons detailed in the court's December 28, 2022, order, Beach Mart, Inc., is realigned as plaintiff for purposes of trial, and Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is realigned as defendant for purposes of trial. JURY VERDICT. The remaining claims in this action came before the court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.IT IS ORDERED, AD JUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company breached its obligations to Beach Mart, Inc. under an insurance policy.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DECREED that the earliest date Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company breached its obligations to Beach Mart, Inc. under an insurance policy was June 8, 2012.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, I nc. is entitled to recover from Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company for the time period from June 8, 2012 to October 3, 2014 in the amount of $577,675.16.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Pennsylvania Nation al Mutual Casualty Insurance Company did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Beach Mart, Inc. did not comply with material terms and conditions of an insurance policy, and either did not act in good faith or materially prejudiced Penn sylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Beach Mart, Inc. failed to use ord inary care to mitigate the consequences of Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company's breach. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania N ational Mutual Casualty Insurance Company misrepresented facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverage at issue, conduct referenced in verdict question 9.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. proved by the p reponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company failed to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under an insurance policy, conduct referenced in verdict qu estion 9.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt i nvestigation of claims arising under an insurance policy, conduct referenced in verdict question 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casual ty Insurance Company refused to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information, conduct referenced in verdict question 9.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Beach Mart, Inc. suffered an injury proximately caused by Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company's conduct referenced in verdict question 9.QUESTION 4. This question was presented t o the jury to answer what amount of damages, if any, Beach Mart, Inc. is entitled to recover from Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company for the time period from October 4, 2014, to February 23, 2017, solely with reference to Beach M art, Inc.'s December 17, 2023, request at trial for partial reconsideration of the court's September 30, 2022, order (DE 247). In light of the jury's response, finding no proof of actual damages for the time period from October 4, 201 4, to February 23, 2017, said motion for reconsideration of the courts September 30, 2022, order in this part is terminated as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Beach Mart, Inc. shall recover prejudgment interest, accruing from June 8, 2012, up to and until date of entry of judgment at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum simple interest on the sum of $577,675.16, for a total prejudgment interest amount of $533,423.67. Beach Mart, Inc. is entitled to an d shall recover post-judgment interest on the entire amount awarded under this judgment, in an amount determined by the rate established by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing as of the date of entry of judgment up to and until satisfaction in full. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 12/21/2023. (Collins, S)
|
|
Filing
241
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, the court overruled defendant's objection to admission of Exhibits 105 and 106 on the ground of lack of authenticity. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/13/2023. (Collins, S)
|
|
Filing
208
ORDER deferring ruling on 152 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 154 Motion in Limine; granting 156 Motion in Limine; granting 158 Motion in Limine; denying 160 Motion in Limine; granting 162 Motion in Lim ine; granting 164 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 166 Motion in Limine; denying 168 Motion in Limine; granting 170 Motion in Limine; granting 172 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 174 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 176 Motion in Limine; denying 178 Motion in Limine; denying 180 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 182 Motion in Limine; granting 184 Motion in Limine; denying 201 Motion for Protective Order. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/29/2023. (Collins, S)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER granting 136 Consent MOTION to Realign the Parties and Set the Order of Proof at Trial. It is ordered that the parties are realigned with Beach Mart as plaintiff and Penn National as defendant. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/28/2022. (Collins, S.)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 113 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Where additional claims remain for trial in accordance with case m anagement order as amended August 23, 2021, this case now is ripe for entry of an order governing deadlines and procedures for final pretrial conference and trial. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and file within 14 days from the date of this order a joint status report. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/30/2022. (Collins, S.)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER denying 96 Motion to Stay. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/8/2021. (Collins, S.)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER granting 89 MOTION to Strike Purported Rebuttal Expert Report of Penn National. Defendant's motion to strike the November 16, 2020 report is allowed, and Plaintiff may use the identical February 15, 2021 report as a Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) rebuttal report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 4/20/2021. (Collins, S.)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER denying as moot 42 Motion for Clarification filed by Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company and granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/5/2018. (Stouch, L.)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting 33 Consent Motion to Lift Stay and LIFTING STAY. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/25/2017. Defendants shall answer the complaint within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order. Potentially dispositive motions shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this order. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for important deadlines and information. (Stouch, L.)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER granting 15 Motion to Stay. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 5/5/2014. (Edwards, S.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
