Layfield et al v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Insurance Company of North Carolina, No. 2:2012cv01590 - Document 47 (E.D. La. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER & REASONS: ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 40 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings are STAYED pending appraisal. FURTHER ORDERED that the pre-trial conference, currently set for January 30, 2014, and the jury trial, currently set for February 24, 2014, are CANCELLED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's pending Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Experts (Rec. Doc. 43 ) is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant's right to re-urge the motion at a later date. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 1/13/14.(sek, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Layfield et al v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Insurance Company of North Carolina Doc. 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHRISTOPHER LAYFIELD and MARY LAYFIELD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-1590 OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA SECTION: J ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 40), set for hearing on Wednesday, January 15, 2014, as well as Plaintiffs' Opposition (Rec. Doc. 45). For the reasons expressed below, the motion is DENIED. Defendant appraisal argues clause in that the Plaintiffs' insurance invocation policy is of the untimely and unreasonable. This Court is instructed by Newman v. Lexington Ins. Co., which makes it clear that courts have wide discretion to determine whether to stay proceedings pending an appraisal.1 In Newman, the court found that "[t]he timeliness of a demand for an apprisal in each case depends upon the circumstances as they existed at the time the demand was made," and the court also took into account whether the party against whom the demand was made 1 No. 06-4668, 2007 WL 1063578, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 4, 2007) (Africk, J.) (internal citations omitted). Dockets.Justia.com would be prejudiced by the appraisal process.2 Here, the insurance policy contains no time limit within which a demand for an appraisal must be made, and the Court rejects Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs' demand is untimely. Additionally, Defendant has not alleged that the use of the appraisal process will prejudice it in any way. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 40) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings are STAYED pending appraisal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pre-trial conference, currently set for January 30, 2014, and the jury trial, currently set for February 24, 2014, are CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's pending Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Experts (Rec. Doc. 43) is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant's right to re-urge the motion at a later date. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of January, 2014. ____________________________ CARL J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Id. (internal citations omitted).
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
