County of Maui v. Ace American Insurance Company
| County of Maui, Darrell Ramos and Asbel Polanco |
| Ace American Insurance Company, Maui Fair Alliance, John Does 1-10, John Doe Partnerships 1-10 and John Doe Corporations 1-10 |
| 1:2014cv00236 |
| May 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI |
| RICHARD L. PUGLISI |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
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
46
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S COUNTER-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 31 Motion for Summary Jud gment; re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/30/2015. This Court hereby informs the parties that it is inclined to: 1) find that it cannot resolve the material issue s of fact in this case until the resolution of the Underlying Action; and 2) close this case administrativelypending the resolution of the Underlying Action. Any party objecting to these inclinations must file a statement, not to exceed five pages, setting forth the reasons why this Court should not administratively close this case pending the resolution of the Underlying Action. The statement must be filedby June 1, 2015. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Janu ary 2, 2015, and Ace Insurance's Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 22, 2015, are HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Counter-Motion is GRANTED and the Motion is DENIED, insofar as this Court CONCLUDES that Ace Insuran ce does not owe Plaintiffs a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify in Goodhue v. County of Maui, et al., CV 14-00006 ACK-KSC, based on Coverage A. The Motion is GRANTED and the Counter-Motion is DENIED, insofar as this Court CONCLUDES that Ace Insurance owes Plaintiffs a duty to defend in Goodhue based on Coverage B. Both the Motion and the Counter-Motion are DENIED insofar as this Court FINDS that there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment on the du ty to indemnify based on Coverage B. Any party that objects to this Court's inclination to close this case administratively pending the resolution of Goodhue must file a statement, in compliance with the terms of this Order, by Ju ne 1, 2015. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- 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.
