Opinion
7:24-cv-26 (WLS)
09-18-2024
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SPRAY PROPERTIES, LLC, MICHAEL SPRAY, and ROBERT WASHINGTON, JR. Defendants.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”) against its insureds Spray Properties, Inc. (“Spray Properties”) and Michael Spray, as well as Robert Washington, Jr. (“Washington, Jr.”). Michael Spray is proceeding pro se in this action. Specifically, Auto-Owners seeks relief from the Court finding that (i) insurance policies issued by Auto-Owners to Spray Properties and Michael Spray do not afford coverage for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Washington, Jr. (“Washington Lawsuit”), (ii) AutoOwners has no duty or obligation to defend Spray Properties or Michael Spray in the Washington Lawsuit, and (iii) Auto-Owners has no liability of any kind relating to the Washington Lawsuit.
On February 24, 2022, a house fire occurred at property owned (and leased) by Spray Properties which resulted in the death of Chance Hollis and Robert Washington, Sr. Washington, Jr. filed a wrongful death suit against Michael Spray and Spray Properties for the death of Robert Washington, Sr. Auto-Owners contends that because it exhausted the full limits of two insurance policies of $1,500,000 to settle claims arising from the death of Chance Hollis, that it has no further obligations under the policies.
Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order (Doc. 16) (“Motion”). Therein, Plaintiff Auto-Owners and pro se Defendant Michael Spray notify the Court that they have settled this case and request the Court to enter the proposed order (Doc. 16-1) (“Proposed Order”). Neither Defendant Spray Properties nor Washington, Jr. are parties to the Proposed Order. Nor has a separate judgment been entered against Spray Properties or Washington, Jr. Nevertheless, the Proposed Order purports to grant all relief requested by Auto-Owners in its complaint-including relief against Spray Properties and/or Washington, Jr.-and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order (Doc. 16) should be and hereby is DENIED without PREJUDICE. The parties may resubmit their Motion and proposed order resolving the case only as to Auto-Owners and Michael Spray. The appropriate parties may take such further action as is necessary or appropriate to resolve the claims against the remaining Defendants.
SO ORDERED.