Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant’s policy providing underinsured motorist coverage required that defendant pay plaintiff for entire $310,000 net loss that plaintiff incurred in work-related traffic accident. Defendant was entitled to subtract $100,000 from $310,000 loss figure, since: (1) plaintiff had received workers’ compensation lien waiver in that amount, when insurance company for at-fault driver paid plaintiff’s employer $100,000 to partially satisfy employer’s workers’ compensation lien; and (2) terms of defendant’s policy allowed it to subtract from loss amount, money that was paid on plaintiff’s behalf to satisfy workers’ compensation lien. Ct. further observed that contrary result would have given plaintiff windfall to extent that she would have received full amount of her damages and her workers’ compensation benefits. Fact that insurance company for at-fault driver paid $100,000 directly to plaintiff’s employer as opposed to plaintiff did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s request for declaration that it had no duty to indemnify defendant-insured in underlying state court personal injury action, where Dist. Ct. found that state court lacked jurisdiction to entertain underlying tort action, where plaintiff in underlying action was employee of insured, and where said employee’s only remedy was administrative action under state’s workers compensation act. Record showed that plaintiff had previously litigated workers compensation jurisdiction issue in Indiana state court system, which awarded employee $4 million judgment, and plaintiff could not file instant federal action on ground that state court had misconceived its jurisdiction over case.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motion to reconsider Dist. Ct.’s grant of plaintiffs-insurance companies’ motions for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiffs did not owe duty to defend defendants in underlying malicious prosecution action, where Dist. Ct. had granted said motion for summary judgment approximately 33 months prior to filing of motion to reconsider, and where basis for motion to reconsider was defendants’ claim that subsequent change in case law called into question correctness of Dist. Ct.’s January 2010 order that found that claim for malicious prosecution occurs for insurance purposes on date when prosecution was instituted. Dist. Ct. could properly find that its January, 2010 order was final judgment because there were no other separate claims pending at time Dist. Ct. had entered its judgment, and because said order had been entered pursuant to Rule 58. Fact that case law might have changed subsequent to time when January 2010 order became final was insufficient to seek reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that one plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of defense costs in underlying declaratory judgment action was separate and “pending” matter that allowed them ability to proceed on their motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b).