Britz Fertilizers, Inc. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 03 October 2013 |
Docket Number | 1:10-cv-02051-AWI-MJS |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Parties | BRITZ FERTILIZERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docs. 79, 82)
PlaintiffBritz Fertilizers, Inc.("Plaintiff" or "Britz") and defendantNationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company("Defendant" or "Nationwide") have filed competing motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment(i.e., summary adjudication) in the alternative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.For reasons discussed below, Nationwide's motion shall be granted in part and denied in part; Britz's motion shall be denied in its entirety.
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings.On November 4, 2010, Britz filed its original complaint against Nationwide asserting one cause of action for declaratory relief.Britz followed up with a first amended complaint on October 28, 2011, asserting causes of action for reformation, declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith.On July 27, 2012, Britz filed its second amended complaint against Nationwide and alleged as follows:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Britz further alleged:
Incorporating the foregoing allegations by reference, Britz further asserted the following sevencauses of action: (1) reformation of "the Umbrella Policy, ab initio, to specifically include Ag E&O coverage;"(2) declaratory relief seeking "a judicial declaration that Nationwide is obligated to indemnify Britz under the Umbrella Policy for the $8,379,043.85 paid by Britz in the Skouti Action, that Nationwide is obligated to indemnify Britz under the CGL policy and the Umbrella Policy for all post-judgment interest paid by Britz in the Skouti Action, and that Nationwide is obligated to reimburse Britz under the CGL and the Umbrella Policy and under Nationwide's written agreement with Britz to do so, for all of Britz'[s] post-judgment attorney fees and costs in the Skouti Action;"(3) declaratory relief "determin[ing] that the professional services exclusions in the CGL Policy and the Umbrella policy are only for services furnished for a fee;"(4) declaratory relief seeking "a judicial determination that Nationwide was obligated to defend and indemnify Britz in the Skouti Action under the Products coverage of the CGL policy and under the Umbrella Policy;"(5) breach of contract; (6) bad faith (i.e., breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing); and (7) fraud.
On March 25, 2013, Britz and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- Colony Ins. Co. v. Vantaggio Farming Corp.
-
Iv Solutions, Inc. v. United Healthcare
...not want to give up its right to sue, it could always have approached Defendant with a tolling agreement, effectively stopping the clock on the statute by agreement. See, e.g.,
Britz Fertilizers, Inc. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., No. 1:10-CV-02051-AWI, 2013 WL 5519605, at *18-19 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013)(statute of limitations on contract claim not time-barred due, in part, to tolling agreement). The parties here are sophisticated businesses with access to counsel,and such... -
Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. Szetela
...1252, to website operation services, Tagged, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 11-0127, 2011 WL 2748682, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (applying California law), agronomist consulting services,
Britz Fertilizers, Inc. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., No. 10-02051, 2013 WL 5519605, at *47 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013), and, as noted above, ear-piercing services, Hollingsworth, 208 Cal. App. 3d at 810. Here, the parties agree Szetela performed pilot car services in exchange... - G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Prot. Prods., Inc.