Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc v. American Safety Indemnity Company

April 13, 2012

D.R. HORTON LOS ANGELES HOLDING CO., INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant American Safety Indemnity Company. (ECF No. 60).

I. Procedural Background

This action arises out of an insurance dispute regarding coverage under four insurance policies (the "Policies") issued by Defendant American Safety Indemnity Company ("ASIC") to Ebensteiner Co. ("Ebensteiner").*fn1 The policies at issue in this litigation are: XGI 01-1261-003 ("03 policy") effective from August 1, 2001 through August 1, 2002; XGI 02-1261-004 ("04 policy") effective from August 1, 2002 through August 1, 2003, XGI 03-1261-005 ("05 policy") effective from August 1, 2003 through August 1, 2004; and ESL 0010410406 ("06 policy") effective from August 1, 2004 through August 1, 2005.

On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc. ("D.R. Horton") filed a Complaint against ASIC which was removed to this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that D.R. Horton was engaged in a real estate development project named Canyon Gate and that D.R. Horton entered into a subcontractor agreement with Ebensteiner for grading work on the project. Id. at 10. The Complaint alleges that Ebensteiner purchased general liability insurance policies from ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary of ASIC's obligations to Ebensteiner. Id. at 10-11.

The Complaint alleges that D.R. Horton received several notices to builder and that several complaints and cross-complaints were filed against D.R. Horton in the following cases: Chang O. Kim, et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC407614 (the "Kim case"), Canyon Gate Maint. Ass'n v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC415663 (the "Canyon Gate case"), and Warrick, et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. PC046442 (the "Warrick case") (collectively "the underlying actions"). The Complaint alleges that D.R. Horton made claims for benefits under the policies regarding the underlying actions and that ASIC declined coverage and refused to defend D.R. Horton.

On April 12, 2010, ASIC filed an Answer. (ECF No. 4). On October 22, 2010, ASIC filed a Counterclaim against D.R. Horton asserting a claim for declaratory relief. ASIC asserts that there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner and that there is no potential coverage for D.R. Horton as an additional insured. (ECF No. 17).

On April 6, 2011, D.R. Horton filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 25). On May 2, 2011, ASIC filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 41). On May 9, 2011, D.R. Horton filed a Reply. (ECF No. 42). On May 20, 2011, D.R. Horton filed a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 44).

On April 15, 2011, ASIC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 33). On May 2, 2011, D.R. Horton filed an Opposition (ECF Nos. 39-40). On May 9, 2011, ASIC filed a Reply. (ECF No. 43).

On May 20, 2011, D.R. Horton filed a Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 44). On May 23, 2011, ASIC filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 45).

On May 27, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on the motions. (ECF No. 46). On August 31, 2011, ASIC filed a Supplemental Brief. (ECF No. 54). On September 14, 2011, D.R. Horton filed an Opposition to the Supplemental Brief. (ECF No. 55).

On January 5, 2012, this Court issued an Order granting D.R. Horton's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) as to D.R. Horton's claims that ASIC had a duty to defend D.R. Horton under the 04 and 05 policies inthe Chang O. Kim, et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC407614; Canyon Gate Maint. Ass'n

v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC415663; and Warrick, et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. PC046442 cases and related notices to builder. The Court denied D.R. Horton's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in all other respects. The Court also granted ASIC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) as to D.R. Horton's third claim for declaratory relief and denied the motion in all other respects. (ECF No. 58).

On January 19, 2012, ASIC filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 60-61, 64). On February 7, 2012, D.R. Horton filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 65). On February ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.