Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enters. LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Baker v. Jordan

    Civil Action 3:18-cv-471 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2022)

    28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, the Court will not exercise its discretion to modify or rescind the Order [DE 80] defining the parameters of discovery. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enter. LLC, No. 1:12-CV-00186-JHM-HBB, 2014 WL 3513211, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 16, 2014) (citing Leelanau Wine Cellars Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 118 Fed.Appx. 942, 945-46 (6th Cir. 2004). Defendants' objection to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 is DENIED.

  2. AIU Ins. Co. v. McKesson Corp.

    598 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2022)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    First, Rite Aid cited with approval Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Richie Enterprises LLC , id. at 248, which distinguished damages "because of" bodily injury from the government plaintiff's claim for "damages for the money it has been required to spend because of the prescription drug abuse epidemic." No. 1:12-CV-00186-JHM-HBB, 2014 WL 3513211, at *5 (W.D. Ky. July 16, 2014), altering 2014 WL 838768, at *7–8 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 4, 2014). California law, as expressed by the California Supreme Court in AIU , draws no such distinction.

  3. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co.

    499 F. Supp. 3d 147 (W.D. Pa. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    SeeJerry's Sport Ctr. , 2 A.3d at 531 n.4 ("Although we find this holding suspect, it is not before us for review."). The Court further notes that any reliance Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enterprises LLC , No. 1:12-CV-00186-JHM, 2014 WL 3513211, at *5 (W.D. Ky. July 16, 2014) is misplaced because the district court in Richie relied on a United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision which has since been distinguished in the context of opioid lawsuits by the Seventh Circuit in H.D. Smith . SeeH.D. Smith , 829 F.3d at 774–75 ("But [Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avent Am., Inc. , 612 F.3d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 2010) ] is readily distinguishable.... [I]mportantly, ‘the plaintiffs [in Medmarc ] never allege[d] that they or their children ever used the products or were actually exposed to the [harmful chemical].’ In other words, there was ‘no claim of bodily injury in any form.

  4. Bliss Sequoia Ins. & Risk Advisors, Inc. v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

    Case No. 6:20-cv-00256-MC (D. Or. Oct. 5, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. H.D. Smith LLC, 829 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2016), Rite Aid v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 5640817, N19C-04-150 EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 22, 2020). But see Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enters. LLC, 2014 WL 3513211, No. 1:12-CV-00186-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. July 16, 2014). There, courts have a found a duty to defend because, although the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation were seeking damages for economic harms, those harms were causally connected to bodily injuries caused by the insured's acts or omissions.