Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NO. 2:21-cv-01389-JHC THE MIDWEST, a Wisconsin corporation, 10 ORDER RE: INDEMNIFICATION Plaintiff, ISSUE 11

v. 12 13 ROBERT HOWELL, JR., a single individual; ROBIN HOWELL and ROBERT HOWELL, 14 SR., a married couple; and SIERRA PACIFIC LAND & TIMBER COMPANY, a California 15 corporation, 16 Defendants. 17

18 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. At the pretrial conference yesterday, 19 the parties appeared to indicate that the issue of Plaintiff’s duty to indemnify could be tried 20 before resolution of the underlying matter. 21 The Court has reviewed and reflected on the portion of the Order referenced by counsel 22 at the conference: 23 If Homesite wishes to litigate its duty to indemnify, it may do so after the 24 Underlying Lawsuit has concluded. See Mut. Of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. USF Ins. Co., 164 Wash.2d 411, 421, 191 P.3d 866 (2008) (“the duty to indemnify arises 25 when an insured is actually liable to a claimant and that claimant’s injury is covered

ORDER RE: INDEMNIFICATION ISSUE - 1 ] by the language of the policy.” (internal citations omitted)). 2 || Dkt. # 113 at 16. The Parties indicated during the hearing that the underlying case remains 3 ongoing, so it has not yet been determined whether the insured 1s actually liable to a claimant ‘ or whether the claimant’s injury is covered by the policy. Thus, it appears to the Court that it would be procedurally improper to try the indemnification issue before resolution of the

7 underlying matter. See id. 8 Said differently, the question regarding Plaintiff ’s request for a declaratory judgment 9 || regarding indemnity does not appear ripe. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) 10 |! (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”) (internal citation and quotation marks "2 omitted); see Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. HPS Mech., Inc., 2024 WL 2786047, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2024) (collecting cases). 15 Given the foregoing, the Court is not inclined to try the indemnification issue at the trial 16 || scheduled for June 9, 2025. Ifa party still believes that the Court may try the issue, they may 17 submit a brief in support of their position, not to exceed three pages, by Friday, May 30, 2025. 18 DATED this 28th day May, 2025. 19 20 () ‘ 21 GE A. Chener— 59 United States District Judge 23 24 25

ORDER RE: INDEMNIFICATION ISSUE - 2