Mcintosh v. USAA General Indemnity Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: October 19, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00816
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

,IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DEBRA MCINTOSH, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20–CV–00816–JPG

USAA GENERAL INDEMINITY COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER This is an insurance dispute. Before the Court is the litigants’ Stipulation to Bifurcate & Stay Discovery, which the Court construes as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). (ECF No. 16). In brief, they ask the Court to resolve the plaintiff’s breach-of- contract claim before addressing her bad-faith claim under the Illinois Insurance Code. “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). That said, “Rule 42(b) obviously is not mandatory.” Ammesmaki v. Interlake S.S. Co., 342 F.2d 627, 631 (7th Cir. 1965). “The district court has considerable discretion to order the bifurcation of a trial,” and it may do so provided that it “1) serves the interests of judicial economy or is done to prevent prejudice to a party; 2) does not unfairly prejudice the non-moving party; and 3) does not violate the Seventh Amendment.” Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 516 (7th Cir. 2000). Although litigation of the breach-of-contract claim could obviate the need to try the bad- faith claim, bifurcation would not promote judicial economy. Both claims are based on the same operative facts; and should the Court find in favor of the plaintiff on the breach-of-contract claim, then bifurcation of the bad-faith claim would only prolong this litigation. See, e.g., Parker v. Allstate Indem. Co., 427 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1008 (S.D. Ill. 2019) (Gilbert, J.) (ruling on breach-of- contract and bad-faith claims together at summary judgment); Bitpay, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 315 F.R.D. 698, 700–701 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (denying motion to bifurcate in a similar case) (“Such an exercise in hair-splitting would waste precious judicial resources, and result in unnecessarily

duplicative discovery if Plaintiff in fact succeeds in proving that the loss was covered.”); Griffith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90 F. Supp. 3d 344, 345–48 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (same). The Court therefore DENIES the litigants’ Stipulation to Bifurcate & Stay Discovery, construed as motion under Rule 42(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Monday, October 19, 2020 S/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE