Federal Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company

Nature of the filing

The opinion text consists of Mt. Hawley’s pre-motion letter and Judge Schofield’s brief order. Mt. Hawley stated that it intended to file a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks the court to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim.

Background

The dispute concerns insurance coverage for an underlying personal-injury action involving a worker who allegedly fell from a scaffold. Federal issued policies to Wieden & Kennedy, Inc. (“W&K”), and Mt. Hawley issued policies to Conelle Construction Corp. (“Conelle”). Federal’s only claim in this action seeks a declaration requiring indemnification—payment for the high/low settlement amount Federal paid on behalf of W&K and W. & M. Operating, LLC.

Mt. Hawley argued that Federal’s indemnification claim was premature because the underlying action had not yet resolved questions of liability and fault. According to Mt. Hawley, those determinations could affect whether W&K qualified as an additional insured for indemnification under the Mt. Hawley policies. Mt. Hawley also noted that other legal issues could remain even after a fault determination.

Court’s action

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the plaintiff to file a response of no more than three pages by April 3, 2024. The text does not state that the court granted or denied Mt. Hawley’s planned motion, and it does not decide whether Federal is entitled to indemnification. The court’s action in this text is limited to setting a response deadline.