State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 31, 2007
• Docket: YORcv-06-168
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. Civil Action Docket No. CV-06-A6<~

STATE FARM MUTUAL 1J~6~~~~L: )~ 10' 0

INSURANCE COMPANY, '_':; iY SF Yl:i~'\ CU:'Ri'iS C)t:T!CE Pit F--, /('r:-~ ", 7;:>1 c".' i !",

) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) PRAMODH KOSHY, ) ) Defendant ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ) STAY PROCEEDINGS and ) ) ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY ) OF BOSTON, INC., SCANDENT GROUP, ) INC., SCANDENT INDIA, ANDREW ) BOUCHARD, JR., TAMMY E. ROBBINS, ) KENNETH A. DIXON, ANNA N. DIXON, ) EUGENE LO and RANJINI, ) ) Parties-In-Interest )

Defendant Pramodh Koshy ("Mr. Koshy"), by and through undersigned counsel,

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court stay all proceedings in this declaratory

judgment action brought by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State

Farm"), with the exception ofPlainiiffs motion for summary judgment, for the following

reasons:

In this declaratory judgment action, the discovery deadline has passed, the motion

deadline is imminent, and preparation for trial is the next step. Plaintiff State Farm has

filed a motion for summary judgment. In his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Koshy drew a necessary distinction between the duty to defend and the

duty to indemnify. Because the duty to defend is a separate question from the duty to

indemnify, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has held that, "if courts conclude that an

insurer owes its insured the duty to defend an underlying action, it should defer ruling on

indemnity." Northern Sec. Ins. Co. v. Dolley, 669 A.2d 1320, 1323 (Me. 1996).

If, in ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that State Farm

has no duty to defend, afortiori State Farm will have no duty to indemnify. If, on the

other hand, the Court finds that State Farm does have a duty to defend, the question of

State Farm's duty to indemnify should be resolved not by a trial in the instant case now,

but after the underlying tort action because, "[f]acts may come to light in the course of

the underlying action that are material to the issue of indemnity." Am. Policyholders'

Ins. Co. v. Kyes, 483 A.2d 337, 339 (Me. 1984). As the Law Court has pointed out, an

insured "should not be required to litigate the underlying facts of a claim in order to

obtain a defense to the litigation when he has already obligated an insurer by contract to

defend him." Elliott v. Hanover Ins. Co., 1998 NIE 138, ~ 7, 711 A.2d 1310, 1312.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court stay all

proceedings in this declaratory judgment action, with the exception of Plaintiffs motion

for summary judgment, until after the resolution of the underlying tort action, Docket

Number CY-04-151. ftA Dated at Portland, Maine this ~ day of July, 2007.

mey for Defendant Pramodh Koshy

2 PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP 50 Monument Square P. O. Box 17555 Portland, Maine 04112-8555 (207) 775-0200

By: James B. Haddow, Esq. - Bar No. 3340

NOTICE

Matter in opposition to this Motion must be filed not later than twenty-one (21) days after the filing of this Motion, unless another time is provided by the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure or set by the Court. Failure to file timely opposition will be deemed a waiver of all objections to the Motion, which may be granted without further notice or hearing.

C> flf)f?7L

i~ ~ ~ ~ ~eu-r-lf -k- ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ - u. A~ ...- ' ~ A.J.~" /' ~ CV-Ol./-/SJ , 0- A~ ~ ~ -....r;r ~ ~ Q.~ecA~. r~ 7-­

~ ~ 6Jv--~.

7l~ a ~~·.s~~~~ ~. tF~ h'Hlj ~ 4...::.7 ~ ~ ~ 7 'f/..A ~- (~4'~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ tyA;:k ~." ?1~ -J~~~,,-.-J., I ~ ~~, ~~ (/ rJ! ~ / (, (; if A, ZcI f 3~.o~ 13;2 3...., P 7 . / /1-1<-1'. /" ?t4.-:;-. ,.f~

ft,~ (!~ ~ ~.s Wf..p ~ ~ ~?-I ~ -..:r -'- ~ ~ 'jh..:r ~ ~ ~.A-e H;~ . f~ ~~ ~ ~ {'~ ~ 'fk ~ p- ~ ~ ~ ~/'Y ~ ~ -It... ~O~: //VtC//..A7Y"Yl ~ 'S ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

/0 j,Q/07 3 ~ ~