Columbus Life Insurance Company v. Wilmington Trust NA

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00734
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Columbus Life Insurance Company, No. CV-21-00734-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Wilmington Trust NA,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On August 11, 2022, this Court stayed the present matter pending the Arizona 16 Supreme Court’s resolution of the following certified question: “Does Arizona law 17 permit an insurer to challenge the validity of a life insurance policy based on a lack of 18 insurable interest after the expiration of the two-year contestability period required by 19 A.R.S. § 20-1204?” (Doc. 103). The Court permitted Defendant Wilmington Trust NA 20 (“Defendant”) to file an Amended Answer (Doc. 105) notwithstanding the stay. 21 (Doc. 104). On July 27, 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court answered the certified 22 question in the negative. (Docs. 108; 110). So, the Court lifted the stay. (Doc. 109). In 23 light of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision, the parties stipulated that the sole 24 remaining claim in this matter is Defendant’s counterclaim for bad faith. (Doc. 111). 25 The Court accordingly dismissed all other claims and counterclaims from this action. 26 (Doc. 112). 27 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company’s 28 1 (“Plaintiff”) “Motion for a More Definite Statement” (Doc. 113)1 regarding Defendant’s 2 Amended Counterclaim for insurance bad faith. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s bad faith 3 counterclaim is unintelligible and confusing. (Id. at 6–8). Defendant disagrees that any 4 clarification is needed but acknowledges that “some of the allegations in the [Amended 5 Counterclaim] are now irrelevant in light of the Court’s Order dismissing all other 6 claims.” (Doc. 114 at 4). Thus, Defendant seeks to file a proposed second amended 7 counterclaim as attached to their Response. (Doc. 114-1). 8 Given the significant changes in the claims and counterclaims at issue, the Court 9 will grant Defendant’s request for an amendment and therefore and deny Plaintiff’s 10 Motion for a More Definite Statement as moot. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Wilmington Trust NA’s request to file a second 13 amended counterclaim is granted. By October 9, 2023, Defendant shall file a clean 14 version of their second amended counterclaim as proposed at Doc. 114-1. Should 15 Plaintiff determine that more discovery is necessary as a result of the second amended 16 counterclaim, it may file a motion to open limited discovery and extend any other 17 relevant deadlines. Such discovery shall be limited to the issues raised by the second 18 amended counterclaim.2 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company’s 20 “Motion for a More Definite Statement” (Doc. 113) is denied as moot. 21 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay the Dispositive

22 1 The matter is fully briefed. Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 114) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 115). 23 2 The Court cautions Plaintiff that the means for seeking clarification of Defendant’s bad 24 faith insurance theories are more properly addressed during discovery as opposed to a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Federal Rules require a pleader to 25 serve only a short, plain statement showing an entitlement to relief; accordingly, motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored when the level of detail sought is 26 more properly ascertained in discovery. See e.g., Renfrow v. BDP Innovative Chem. Co., 2015 WL 13036933, *1 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2015) (denying motion where ambiguity 27 regarding timing of breach could be clarified in discovery); Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F.Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1991) ( “where the information sought 28 by the moving party is available and/or properly sought through discovery the motion [for a motion definite statement] should be denied”). Motion Deadline Pending Columbus Life’s Motion for More Definite Statement 2|| (Doc. 116) is granted in that the dispositive motion deadline in this matter is extended to 3|| November 3, 2023. The remainder of the Court’s Order (Doc. 20) is otherwise 4|| affirmed. 5 Dated this 5th day of October, 2023. 6 Do Le 7 norable’Diang4. Hunfetewa g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-