Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-2636
08-27-2015
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE ALARM COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER BRIEFING
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 33.) Defendants oppose the motion, and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on February 27, 2015. (Dkt. # 46.) Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding whether it owes Defendants a duty to defend and indemnify in connection with the claims asserted in ADT Services AG and ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Thomas Brady, Susan Brady, Lance Woods, and The Alarm Company, LLC, No. 10-cv-02197. (Dkt. # 33, Pg. ID 688.) In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Count VI alleges that Defendants failed to give proper notice of an "occurrence or offense" or "error or omission" that could result in a claim, thereby forfeiting the duty to defend and indemnify owed to them. (Dkt. # 56, Pg. ID 1483.) This threshold issue is not discussed in either party's briefing. The court therefore requests that the parties simultaneously file supplemental briefs directed at timeliness issue. The briefs, which shall be no longer than ten pages in length, should discuss whether Defendants were timely in notifying Plaintiff of a claim under the insurance policies, and, if not, whether the presumption of prejudice due to the delay can be rebutted. See American Justice Ins. Reciprocal v. Huchison, 15 S.W.3d 811, 818 (Tenn. 2000).
IT IS ORDERED that parties shall file supplemental briefs by September 11, 2015 addressing the question of timeliness.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, August 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-02636.SCOTTSDALE.BriefingRequest.wpd