Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Shreve

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia
DecidedAugust 21, 2019
Docket5:18-cv-00031
StatusUnknown

This text of Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Shreve (Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Shreve) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Shreve, (N.D.W. Va. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA SPIRIT COMMERCIAL AUTO RISK RETENTION GROUP, SANDEEP BADWALSIGH and INDY FREIGHT, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 5:18CV31 (STAMP) RANDALL RYAN SHREVE, KASEE RENEE PORTER, GERRY W. HARRIS, JR., MATTHEW JOSEPH PITZER, AARON JACKSON, KAREN N. BARNETT, CYNTHIA G. DRANE, DAVID WESTON, FREDERICK DEAN CONNORS, WILLIAM A. HEINBAUGH, ANGELA R. AUBIHIL, VICKY L. POSEY, JESSICA LEIGH ALLEN, ROBERT S. POWERS, JODI SHACKELFORD, JEFFREY DOUGLAS SHACKELFORD, ANDREW J. ZEIGER, SANDRA L. HEINBAUGH, WILLIAM HEINBAUGH, N.K., a minor, M.A., a minor, PAMELA LIPSCOMB, DIANA SHACKELFORD, BETHANI A. SHACKELFORD, ELIZABETH BARNETT, BROOKE N. DRANE, TIERRA N. BRAWNER, TREY M. BRAWNER, TERENCE D. BRAWNER, BOBBY JO WESTON, E.W., a minor, B.W., a minor and BRUCE DAVIDSON, Defendants. ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES The above-styled civil action is an interpleader action arising out of a twenty plus motor vehicle and tractor trailer accident that occurred on March 13, 2016. At the request of the parties, this Court appointed a Special Master in the above-styled civil action, Stephen J. Dalesio, Esq. (hereinafter “Special Master”), for the purposes of apportioning and distributing the remaining policy limits to the claimants in the form of confidential and binding arbitration awards and the discharge of liability on the part of the plaintiffs Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group (“Spirit Commercial”), Indy Freight, Inc. (“Indy Freight”), and Sandeep Badwalsingh1 (“Badwalsingh”). Further, this Court appointed Guardians Ad Litem, Jeffery D. Kaiser, Esq., and Ryan P. Orth, Esq. ECF No. 64. Now before this Court is the Special Master’s motion for an order requiring plaintiffs Indy Freight and Sandeep Badwalsingh to pay the plaintiffs’ portion of the Special Master’s fees. ECF No. 84. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. On April 26, 2019, the court-appointed Special Master in the above-styled civil action filed a motion for an order requiring 1This Court notes that the original case caption, and the caption used throughout this civil action, reflects “Sandeep Badwalsigh” as the individual plaintiff’s name. This caption comports with the Complaint for Interpleader (ECF No. 1) as styled by the plaintiffs. However, for purposes of clarity, this Court also notes that plaintiff’s last name has alternatively been spelled “Badwalsingh.” Both versions of plaintiff’s name have been used throughout the briefing and this Court notes that both versions refer to the same individual plaintiff. This Court believes “Badwalsingh” to be the correct spelling, and will refer to plaintiff by that name throughout this order. 2 plaintiffs Indy Freight and Badwalsingh to pay the Special Master’s fees in the amount of $11,920.85. ECF No. 84. The Special Master’s requested fee represents the plaintiffs’ portion of the fees still owed in connection with the apportionment and distribution of insurance proceeds in this interpleader action. Id. at 1. The Special Master states that he has forwarded his invoice for services in this case to plaintiffs’ counsel and requested that plaintiffs pay their agreed upon 50% of the Special Master’s fees. Id. at 3. The Special Master notes that he has received full payment from the defendants for their share of the Special Master’s fees. Id. at 4. The Special Master adds that he has made attempts to collect the remaining fees owed to him by the plaintiffs in connection with his work in this case, but has still not received any payment. Id. Further, the Special Master states that he was notified on February 5, 2019, that Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group filed for bankruptcy protection and/or receivership. Id. The Special Master asserts that he forwarded his invoice for his services in connection with this case to plaintiffs’ counsel on November 21, 2018, over sixty days prior to being notified of Spirits Commercial’s receivership. Id. The Special Master asserts that plaintiffs Indy Freight and Badwalsingh are not the subject of any bankruptcy proceeding or receivership, and pursuant to the parties’ agreement, are responsible and liable for plaintiffs’ portion (50%) of the Special Master’s fees incurred in this case totaling $11,920.85. Id. In support, the Special 3 Master contends that these plaintiffs have received the benefits of the Special Master’s work in connection with this case but have not complied with their agreement to pay 50% of the fee due and owing in this case. Id. Plaintiffs then filed a response in opposition to the Special Master’s motion. ECF No. 87. As an initial matter, “[p]laintiffs request[] that the court hold Oral Argument on the pending motions of the special master to allow counsel to address the court and advocate on behalf Indy Freight and Mr. Badwalsingh, both of whom are innocent bystanders to the placement of Spirit into receivership.” ECF No. 87 at 1. Plaintiffs oppose the Special Master’s motion stating that “[w]hen the agreement was reached to split the Special Masters’ fees the obligation to do so was agreed to by a representative of Spirit. Mr. Badwalsingh and Indy Freight did not personally agree to this arrangement.” Id. at 2. It is the plaintiffs’ position that the Special Master’s fees are fees incurred by Spirit, which Spirit agreed to pay and that the Special Master’s fees are not fees incurred by plaintiffs Indy Freight or Sandeep Badwalsingh, and neither Indy Freight nor Sandeep Badwalsingh agreed to pay such fees on either an individual or several basis. Id. at 3. Moreover, even if such fees were to be taxed against either Indy Freight or Sandeep Badwalsingh, plaintiffs contend that the fees are within the supplementary payments covered by the Spirit Commercial automobile liability policy. Id. Plaintiffs further add that “to the extent that 4 Spirit is not available to pay any remaining expenses in this case, including the Special Master fees and Guardian Ad Litem fees, then the expenses should have been awarded out of the interpleader fund and not taxed against Plaintiffs Indy Freight, Inc. and Sandeep Badwalsingh.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that “[t]o grant the motion of the Special Master would be inequitable in that Indy Freight and Mr. Badwalsingh’s only recourse would be to file a lawsuit against the party that is responsible for the fees, Spirit, which they cannot do as a result of the Order establishing the receivership.” Id. at 4. In reply, the Special Master states that he “does not believe that oral argument is necessary concerning this motion and believes that oral argument will only unnecessarily increase the time and cost associated with this matter.” ECF No. 88. The Special Master also argues that “[n]otwithstanding that this is an interpleader action, the fact remains that this Court ordered ‘Plaintiffs’ to pay the Special Master’s fees associated with his work in connection with this case and Indy Freight, Inc. and Sandeep Badwalsingh are Plaintiffs.” Id. at 1. The Special Master contends that it is therefore equitable to require these plaintiffs to pay the Special Master’s fees, and asserts that “[t]he fact that these expenses should be covered by insurance is not relevant to the Special master’s motion” and “[t]he contractual obligation of Spirit to pay costs and fees incurred by the Plaintiffs is a matter

5 between Spirit and Indy Freight, Inc. and Sandeep Badwalsingh and not a matter between Plaintiffs and the Special Master.” Id. at 2. Following the briefing of the Special Master’s motion regarding payment of fees, plaintiffs then filed a motion to withdraw docket entries ECF No. 85 and ECF No. 89, docket entry ECF No. 87 in part, and to stay this civil action. ECF No. 90.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group v. Shreve, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spirit-commercial-auto-risk-retention-group-v-shreve-wvnd-2019.