Grange Ins. Ass'n v. Sran
| Decision Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-00526-SAB |
| Citation | 184 F.Supp.3d 799 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | Grange Insurance Association, Plaintiff, v. Gulzar Sran, et al., Defendants. |
Brandt Louis Wolkin, Wolkin Curran, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael F. Hardiman, Hardiman & Carroll, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.
Benjamin Thomas Nicholson, David L. Emerzian, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP, James Hugh Wilkins, Wilkins, Drolshagen & Czeshinski, Fresno, CA, James P. Wagoner, The Martin Law Firm, Hanford, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SRAN'S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW MATERIAL AND NEW ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Grange Insurance Association's ("Plaintiff" or "Grange") motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Caeden Fisher ("Fisher") and Defendant Gulzar Sran ("Sran") with regard to Plaintiff's First and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint and Sran's Eleventh Affirmative Defense. (ECF No. 40.)1 Also before the Court is Sran's motion to strike new material and new argument advanced in Plaintiff's reply brief. (ECF No. 48.)
The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and Sran's motion to strike new material and new argument advanced in Plaintiff's reply brief took place on March 30, 2016. Brandt Wolkin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. James Wilkins appeared on behalf of Fisher. Benjamin Nicholson and James Wagoner appeared on behalf of Sran. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denies Sran's motion to strike new material and new argument advanced in Grange's reply brief.
On November 22, 2014, Sran was transporting a forklift on a trailer behind his pickup truck on State Route 180. (ECF No. 2-3.) As Sran was making a left hand turn, a vehicle driven by Jennifer Fisher stuck the rear of the trailer. Ms. Fisher sustained fatal injuries. On January 20, 2015, a complaint was filed in Fresno County Superior Court seeking damages for the wrongful death of Ms. Fisher, Caeden Fisher v. Gulzar Singh Sran, Case No. 15CECG00197 (the "Fisher Action").
The complaint in this action was filed on April 2, 2015. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff's complaint raises four causes of action: two claims for declaratory relief and two claims for equitable reimbursement. Plaintiff names Sran and Fisher as defendants. The claims raised in Plaintiff's complaint arise from two insurance policies that Plaintiff issued to Sran. These policies are at issue in this action and consist of a FarmPak Plus Farming and Personal Liability Insurance policy ("FarmPak policy") and a Farm and Commercial Liability Excess policy ("Excess policy").
In the First Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that no coverage exists under FarmPak policy, number FP01030181, effective for the period of April 23, 2014 through April 23, 2015, for the claims asserted in the Fisher Action. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Sran with respect to the Fisher Action. In the Second Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that no coverage exists under the Excess policy, number UC 7105220975, effective for the period of November 21, 2014 through April 23, 2015, for the Fisher Action. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Sran with respect to the Fisher Action.
On June 11, 2016, Sran filed an Answer to the Complaint, in which he raises seventeen affirmative defenses. The Eleventh Affirmative Defense is for good faith and fair dealing.
Sran filed a Third Party Complaint on June 25, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) Sran named JKG Insurance Agency ("JKG") and Harry Gill ("Gill") as Third-Party Defendants. The Third Party Complaint raises claims for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, equitable indemnity, and equitable contribution arising from the sale of the FarmPak policy and the Commercial Excess policy. Sran alleges that Third-Party Defendants had misrepresented the coverages provided under the policies and failed to procure the requested coverage.
On January 22, 2016, Sran filed a Counterclaim against Grange. (ECF No. 38.) Sran's counterclaim raises claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, and reformation based on the actions of JKG and Gill as agents of Grange.
On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) On March 16, 2016, Sran and Fisher filed oppositions. (ECF Nos. 42, 44.) Plaintiff filed replies to Sran's and Fisher's oppositions on March 23, 2016. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.) On March 25, 2016, Sran filed a motion to strike new material and new argument advanced in Plaintiff's reply brief. (ECF No. 48.)
The claims in the Fisher Action concern whether the manner in which Sran hauled the trailer was negligent by loading a trailer which did not have operating brake lights and loading the forklift in a manner which obscured vision of the truck's brake lights.
The parties agree that Sran was hauling a trailer and forklift with his truck when the accident occurred. The parties agree that Sran's Ford F250 pickup truck involved in the accident was a "motorized vehicle" under the "motorized vehicle" exclusion and Exclusion e and that the "forklift" is "mobile equipment." The parties agree that bodily injury or property damage arising out of "mobile equipment" is excluded from Exclusion e of the FarmPak policy.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "[a] party may move for summary judgment...if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case..." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 1348.
4. Sran was operating the Ford truck and trailer in the eastbound no. 1 lane of Whitesbridge Avenue and was either slowing or stopped to make a left hand turn into the driveway of his residence at the time of the accident.
5. The Ford truck and trailer were carrying a forklift at the time of the accident.
6. While Sran was operating his truck and trailer carrying the forklift, Jennifer Fisher struck the rear of the trailer and sustained fatal injuries.
7. As a result of the accident, a Complaint and First Amended Complaint were filed in Fresno County Superior Court in the Fisher Action.
8. The Fisher Action alleges claims for the wrongful death of Jennifer Fisher, the mother of Caeden Fisher.
9. A First Amended Complaint has been filed in the Fisher Action.
10. Grange issued the FarmPak policy to Sran for the policy period April 23, 2014 to April 23, 2015.
11. Grange issued the Excess Policy to Sran for the policy period November 21, 2014 to April 23, 2015.
12. Sran tendered the defense of the Fisher Action to Grange.
13. Grange has accepted the defense of Sran in the Fisher Action under a reservation of rights.
14. Sran also tendered the defense of the Fisher Action to his automobile insurance carrier, CSAA Insurance Exchange.
15. CSAA Insurance Exchange has accepted the defense of Sran in the Fisher Action.
16. In the Fisher Action, plaintiff alleges: "…Sran loaded the forklift onto the trailer with full knowledge and awareness that the large forklift would and did in fact block the truck's brake lights from the vision of approaching motorists when he operated the truck and trailer on the roadway."
17. The Complaint was filed in this matter on April 2, 2015.
18. The First Cause of Action in the Complaint is for Declaratory Relief and seeks a judicial declaration as to whether the FarmPak Policy has a duty with regard to the Fisher Action.
19. The Second Cause of Action in the Complaint is for Declaratory Relief and seeks a judicial declaration as to whether the Excess Policy has a duty with regard to the Fisher Action.
20. On June 11, 2015, Sran filed "Defendant Gulzar Sran's Answer to Complaint" ("Answer").
21. On April 23, 2015, an "Offer to Compromise Pursuant to CCP § 998 and Notice of Acceptance" was served by Fisher on Sran in the Fisher Action (" § 998 Offer").
22. In response to the § 998 Offer, CSAA offered its $500,000 policy limits.
23. The FarmPak Plus Farming and Personal Liability Insurance Policy ("FarmPak policy")...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Raimondo
...made in opposition briefs).) The Court is not persuaded by the SRS Contractors' response. As Federal Defendants point out, the plaintiff in Grange was responding to the[] arguments advanced by [the defendant]” in a prior brief by pointing to a potentially applicable exclusion in the relevan......
-
Mahon v. Morton Golf, LLC
...reply, but the Court "generally refuses to consider new arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief." Grange Ins. Ass'n v. Sran, 184 F. Supp. 3d 799, 819 (E.D. Cal. 2016). IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to be irreparably harmed in the absence of a prelimin......