Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00032-JLK.
February 4, 2008
ORDER
Based on my review of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8), the parties' related briefs and the documents attached thereto, I find the Motion appropriate for oral argument and ORDER counsel jointly to contact chambers for the purpose of setting such oral argument. Once set, I will expect counsel to appear for oral argument prepared to address all of the issues raised in the parties' related briefs, but specifically to apprise the court regarding the nature of the payments Davis sought and received from Swift in settlement, if any.
In so ordering I do not compel the disclosure of confidential settlement documents or other confidential information, but I am telling the parties this case cannot proceed unless I can interpret the Non-Duplication of Workers' Compensation Benefits clause of the insurance policy at issue. I note that I am not inclined, at this juncture, to construe the policy to exclude coverage based simply on an insured's act of filing a claim for benefits under "workers' compensation, occupational disease or similar law." I am inclined, however, to construe the policy as excluding coverage for losses that have already been compensated pursuant to a claim so filed.