D'Agostino v. Fed. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION: NO. 12-11628-DJC

• Decision Date: 17 June 2013
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION: NO. 12-11628-DJC
• Parties: MIIA C. D'AGOSTINO, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

MIIA C. D'AGOSTINO, Plaintiff,

v.FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION: NO. 12-11628-DJC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

June 17, 2013

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY

DEIN, U.S.M.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on "Defendant Federal Insurance Company's Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Completion of Appraisal Proceedings" (Docket No. 18). After consideration of the parties' written submissions and their oral arguments, the defendant's motion to stay is hereby DENIED.

By its motion, defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Federal") is seeking a stay of the litigation so that it can invoke the appraisal clause of the insurance policy at issue in this case. That clause provides as follows:

If you [the insured] and we [Federal] do not agree on the amount of the loss or damage, either party may make a written demand for an appraisal of the loss or damage. In this event, you will select and pay a competent and impartial appraiser, and we will select and pay a competent and impartial appraiser. The two appraisers will selectan umpire. If the appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, either may request that a judge of a court having jurisdiction make the selection. Each appraiser will separately state the value of the property and the amount of the loss or damage. If the appraisers do not agree, they will submit their statements to the umpire. Agreement by the umpire and either of the appraisers will be binding on you [the insured] and us [Federal].

You and we will equally share any other appraisal costs and the costs of the umpire.

If there is an appraisal, we will still retain our right to deny the claim.

(Def. Mot. at Ex. A). Federal contends that completion of this process will enable the parties to determine the amount of additional compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled under the insurance policy, and will therefore resolve one of the central disputes at issue in the case. It further argues that a stay for purposes of completing an appraisal would serve the interests of justice and judicial economy by narrowing the issues, encouraging the parties to resume settlement discussions, and possibly facilitating the resolution of the case. The plaintiff strenuously disagrees, and urges the court to deny the motion.

II. ANALYSIS

A court's authority to stay proceedings "is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants." Bank of Am., N.A. v. WRT Realty, L.P., 769 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39 (D. Mass. 2011) (quoting Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936)). Thus, the decision "whether to stayproceedings involves balancing the interests of the parties and the Court. A stay is appropriate where it is 'likely to conserve judicial and party time, resources, and energy.'" Id. (quoting Diomed, Inc. v. Total Vein Solutions, LLC, 498 F. Supp. 2d 385, 387 (D. Mass. 2007)) (internal citation omitted).

This court finds that a stay would not be appropriate in the instant case. As an initial matter, Federal has not pointed to any language in the policy which suggests that the completion of an appraisal is a pre-requisite to filing suit. Nor is there any language supporting the stay of an ongoing litigation. Accordingly, this court...