Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. O'LEARY PAINT CO., INC.
Decision Date | 16 December 2009 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:09-cv-690. |
Citation | 676 F. Supp.2d 623 |
Parties | CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. O'LEARY PAINT COMPANY, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Kenneth C. Newa, Plunkett Cooney, Detroit, MI, Lauren Beth McMillen, Plunkett Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.
John P. Fischer, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, William J. Leeder, III, Jeffrey G. Muth, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant.
This is an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant defendant's motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Plaintiff Cincinnati Insurance Company ("Cincy"), an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, issued primary and umbrella commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policies to defendant O'Leary Paint Company, Inc. ("O'Leary"), a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. See Complaint filed July 27, 2009 ("Comp") ¶¶ 2, 5-6, and 12-14; Comp. Exs. C-I (primary policies covering policy periods from January 1, 1996 through November 27, 2010); Comp. Exs. J-O (umbrella policies covering policy periods from January 1, 1997 through November 27, 2010). Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 is undisputed. See Comp. ¶ 7.
This action arises out of a letter which the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") sent to defendant O'Leary alleging the unauthorized release of petroleum and/or other hazardous substances from an O'Leary facility located in Indiana. See Comp. ¶¶ 2 and 10-11. The IDEM's April 27, 2009 letter to O'Leary read as follows, in its entirety:
If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact .... Comp. Exhibit ("Ex") B or Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer Case filed October 15, 2009 ("MTD") Ex. 1 ( )("IDEM Letter") at 1-2. On May 27, 2009, O'Leary sent Cincy a Notice of Suit and Request for Defense, see Comp. ¶ 9, which reads as follows, in its entirety:
Comp. Ex. A or MTD Ex. 2 (Letter of John P. Fisher, Esq., to Cincinnati Insurance Company Claims Analyst dated May 27, 2009) at 1-2 (boldface in original).
O'Leary contends that the CGL policies obligate Cincy to provide or fund a legal defense, as well as indemnification, in relation to proceedings which the Indiana agency institutes against O'Leary, while Cincy denies the existence of coverage or a duty to defend. See Comp. ¶¶ 3-4. Cincy alleges that the policies provide that it will have the right and duty to defend any "suit" seeking damages due to "property damage", see Comp. ¶ 15, and that the policies define "suit", in pertinent part, as "a civil proceeding in which money damages because of ... `property damage' ... to which insurance applies are alleged", see Comp. ¶ 16. Cincy makes two arguments against imposition of a duty to defend or indemnify: first, the IDEM letter does not constitute a "suit" as the policies define the term, and second, even if it is a suit, the duty to defend or indemnify is specifically foreclosed by the policies' unambiguous pollution-exclusion clauses. See Comp. ¶¶ 17-19.
About a week later, on June 5, 2009, Cincy responded with a letter stating as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pantuso v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc.
...standard of deference should presumptively not apply to a U.S. plaintiff's choice of forum"); but see Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. O'Leary Paint Co., 676 F.Supp.2d 623, 632 (W.D.Mich.2009) (applying the less deferential standard where the plaintiff was a non-resident of the forum state). Tennesse......
-
Cole v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...witnesses, however, "is more important than the convenience of party witnesses on either side." Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. O'Leary Paint Co., Inc., 676 F.Supp.2d 623, 635 (W.D. Mich. 2009). In its Motion to Transfer Venue, Chase does not identify any non-party witnesses whom it intends to call,......
-
Benta v. Springel
...its posture before the court is more akin to a defendant than an ordinary plaintiff seeking relief." Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. O'Leary Paint Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 623, 632 (W.D. Mich. 2009) (citing Hyatt Int'l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 718 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis original) (internal citati......
-
Kendle v. Whig Enters., LLC
...contract law is not so unique as to strongly militate against transfer to another forum). See also Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. O'Leary Paint Co., 676 F. Supp.2d 623, 638 (W.D. Mich. 2009) (stating that "in the absence of any legal issues which seem complex, the necessity for either court to appl......