New Oil Christian Center v. GuideOne Insurance Company

Background

New Oil Christian Center alleged that GuideOne Insurance Company breached an insurance policy by failing to pay all of New Oil’s covered losses after a pipe break caused water damage to part of the insured premises. GuideOne answered and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaration that New Oil breached provisions concerning concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud and the duty to cooperate, and that the policy did not cover certain code upgrades. GuideOne also sought repayment of funds it had already paid to New Oil.

New Oil moved to strike and dismiss GuideOne’s counterclaims, arguing that they duplicated GuideOne’s affirmative defenses. GuideOne’s response was due April 1, 2024, but GuideOne did not file it by that deadline. GuideOne then moved for permission to file the late response, explaining that its lawyers had mistakenly calculated the deadline and believed the response was due later.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) permits a court to extend an expired deadline when the party’s failure to act resulted from “excusable neglect.” The court considered the possible prejudice to New Oil, the length and effect of the delay, GuideOne’s reason for missing the deadline and whether that reason was within its control, and whether GuideOne acted in good faith.

Court’s analysis

The court found that New Oil would not be prejudiced because the case was still at an early stage. Although considering the response required moving the oral argument on New Oil’s motion, the court found that the change would not affect the pretrial scheduling-order deadlines or significantly delay the proceedings. The court also found that GuideOne’s error was within its control but was not extreme, and that GuideOne acted in good faith after learning of the missed deadline.

Disposition

The court GRANTED GuideOne Insurance Company’s motion for leave to file a response to New Oil’s motion to strike and/or dismiss the counterclaim. The order did not resolve New Oil’s motion to strike or dismiss the counterclaims and did not decide the parties’ underlying insurance dispute.