Opinion
Case No. CV13-05100 DDP (SSx)
02-09-2015
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. KAY AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a California corporation; ANNETTE KARDISH, a California resident; JONA KARDISH, a California Resident; JESSICA KARDISH, a California Resident and CHRISTOPHER INGRAM, a California Resident, Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Case Filing Date: July 16, 2013
[CLOSED]
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On January 26, 2015, plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company's ("Admiral") Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Partial Summary Judgment and defendant Christopher Ingram's ("Ingram") Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing before this Court with Robert D. Hoffman of Charlston, Revich & Wollitz LLP appearing on behalf of Admiral and Barbara J. Mandell of Mandell & Associates, PC appearing on behalf of Ingram. Having considered the evidence, authorities and arguments presented by Admiral and Ingram, the Court on January 29, 2015 issued an Order (Docket No. 51) granting Admiral's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Ingram's Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the reasons set forth in that Order, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Admiral is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Admiral's claims for declaratory relief as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Admiral has no duty under the employment practices liability insurance policy issued by Admiral to Kay Automotive Distributors, Inc. bearing Policy No. 4976047 for the policy period September 6, 2010 to September 6, 2011 ("Policy") to indemnify any of the claims in the action Christopher Ingram, et al. v. Kay Automotive Distributors, Inc., et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVRS1108134 ("Ingram Action"), including the claims in the proposed first amended complaint with respect to Ingram's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint filed on January 22, 2013 in the Ingram Action, and that Admiral's duty to defend the Ingram Action is limited to the $100,000 sub-limit for Costs of Defense referred to in the wage and hour exclusion in ¶ 7 of the Swett & Crawford Advantage A endorsement to the Policy and that Admiral shall recover its costs of suit. IT IS SO ADJUDGED. DATED: February 09, 2015
By/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE