CREDIT REINSURANCE SERV. v. TOLIC, Civ. A. No. 89-100-VAL (WDO).
| Decision Date | 13 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-100-VAL (WDO). |
| Citation | 758 F. Supp. 727 |
| Parties | CREDIT REINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Robert E. Wood, Williford & Wood, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Gary C. Crapster, Strasburger & Price, Dallas, Tex., and H. Sanders Carter, Jr., Anthiny J. McGinley, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
Before the court is plaintiff Credit Reinsurance Services, Inc.'s ("CRS") motion to transfer venue. After careful consideration of the briefs and memoranda submitted by counsel and the record as a whole the court hereby issues the following order.
A brief procedural history of the various disputes around which this case revolves clarified the court's ruling.
On January 18, 1989, Life of the South Insurance Company ("LSIC"), a Georgia corporation, filed suit against Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company ("TOLIC"), a California corporation, alleging that TOLIC had attempted to repudiate a reinsurance agreement between TOLIC and LSIC. TOLIC removed the action to this court and filed a counterclaim against LSIC as well as a third-party complaint against Credit Reinsurance Services, Inc. ("CRS") and CRS President, Mr. Ray Stroud ("Stroud"). TOLIC, relying upon a separate agreement between TOLIC and CRS ("the Indemnification Agreement"), asserted a right to indemnification from CRS for all damages traceable to TOLIC's transactions with LSIC. TOLIC alleged that CRS had breached the Indemnification Agreement.
On May 12, 1989, CRS filed suit in Texas state court, alleging that TOLIC had breached the Indemnification Agreement with CRS by failing to pay certain commissions on other reinsurance agreements. TOLIC removed that proceeding to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. TOLIC filed counterclaims based upon the Indemnification Agreement, then moved the Texas District Court to transfer that case to this court.
The Texas District Court found that CRS's Texas complaint might properly have been brought in Georgia as a counterclaim to TOLIC's third party action; the court also found that in order to avoid duplicity and in the interest of judicial economy the disputes between CRS and TOLIC should all be adjudicated in one forum. On September 6, 1989, TOLIC's motion to transfer was granted because of the interrelationship of the claims between CRS and TOLIC (C.A. 89-100-VAL) and the claims already pending between LSIC and TOLIC (C.A. 89-23-VAL) in this court. Upon the motion of CRS, the two matters were consolidated on January 5, 1990.
On December 3, 1990, upon motion of LSIC made in furtherance of a settlement agreement between LSIC and TOLIC, this court dismissed with prejudice LSIC's complaint and TOLIC's counterclaim against LSIC.
Essentially, all the disputes and potential liabilities in these matters revolve around the Indemnification Agreement between TOLIC and CRS. The only disputes which did not directly depend upon an evaluation of the Indemnification Agreement were those between LSIC and TOLIC. Those disputes were peripheral to the central disputes between TOLIC and CRS....
To continue reading
Request your trial