Evraz Inc. NA, v. Continental Insurance Company, et al., No. 3:2008cv00447 - Document 439 (D. Or. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 430 as my own opinion. The Motion 410 is GRANTED. The non-settling insurers will retain their equitable offset rights; the right to argue that th e Settlement Agreement, and the resulting contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforcethe express terms of their excess insurance policies. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of June, 2018, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (peg)
Download PDF
Evraz Inc. NA, v. Continental Insurance Company, et al. Doc. 439 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION EVRAZ INC., N.A., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, No. 3:08-cv-00447-AC v. OPINION AND ORDER THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., Defendants. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMP ANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a foreign insurance company, et al., Defendants and Third-Party Defendants, THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a foreign insurance company and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Defendants, Third-Party Defendants, and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company; and DOES 1-10, Third-Party Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On April 16, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [430], recommending that the settling parties' Motion for Settlement [410] should be GRANTED. He also recommended that the non-settling insurers should retain their equitable offset rights; the right to argue that the Settlement Agreement, and the resulting contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforce the express terms of their excess insurance policies. Settling party Continental Insurance Company filed objections [432]. Non-settling parties Stonewall Insurance Company, ZurichAmerican Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, and Westport Insurance Company filed a joint response. [438]. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 2 - OPINION AND ORDER the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [430] as my own opinion. The Motion [410] is GRANTED. The non-settling insurers will retain their equitable offset rights; the right to argue that the Settlement Agreement, and the resulting contribution bar, is limited to the one occurrence at the Rivergate Site; and the right to enforce the express terms of their excess insurance policies. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of June, 2018. s District Judge 3 - OPINION AND ORDER