Saint John's African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Guideone Mutual Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2011cv00664 - Document 75 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that GuideOne's 21 motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. GuideOne's 33 motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged bad faith or to bifurcate is GRANTED as to bifurcation. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 10/3/2012. (rsim, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA OCT Norfolk Division SAINT JOHN'S AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL 3 2012 r. PFw ,, o nimt^ j CLERK, U^ DISTRICT COURT CHURCH, .NORFOLK. VA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 2:llcv664 : COMPANY, Defendant. OPINION AND This matter GuideOne motion Specialty for and bad or faith evidence respect outlined of to judgment as bad October Case to in limine below, faith to Count to filed 31, in the No. CL1100783 8-00, recover attorneys' Docket on ("GuideOne") Count II alleged Nos. in 21, motion for of the evidence 33. limine trial Defendant is For to of the exclude GRANTED partial with summary is DENIED. PROCEDURAL HISTORY African Methodist against Circuit alleging and to motion the Complaint suit fees as exclude GuideOne's John7 s Court Company's bifurcate FACTUAL AND John's") 2011 trial. or II of Saint to GuideOne's bifurcation. Plaintiff ("Saint judgment the Insurance bifurcate I. before summary motion to currently Mutual partial Complaint reasons is ORDER its Court breach costs for of under Episcopal insurer, the City contract Virginia Church GuideOne, of and Code on Norfolk, a right Section 3 8.2-209. dispute Saint John's Title Docket No. between storm. on See the the Section of 1332. GuideOne filed John's 2012. 29, Docket 2012 to bifurcate to costs under consider § Order, the request Docket No. for partial attorneys' alleged Docket Saint No. 28, the first fees or to 33. November Court that 12, 2009 pursuant States to 2011, Code, and evidence As of of to 3, on August faith or to require motions for as August on limine bad the attorneys' considers issue judgment costs in both request Court the summary them fees together bifurcation and, and in second, summary judgment. moved in limine bifurcate The damages United then moved 33. John's 38.2-209, has a coverage on December 16, GUIDEONE'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE GuideOne faith Title of and this under GuideOne for partial to a Section 1441 motion 21. losses during case out 1. for reaching II. bad a exclude trial. Court this No. the Code, No. request Saint regarding diversity Docket action arose sustained removed United States grounds The parties allegedly GuideOne 28, 1. trial to OR BIFURCATE exclude alleged evidence the issue considers Court on of the request bad to of faith. bifurcate before addressing the exclusion of evidence. A. Federal motion to LEGAL Rule bifurcate. of STANDARD Civil Epps v. FOR BIFURCATION Procedure Arise 42(b) governs Scaffolding & a party's Equip., Inc., No. 2:10cvl89/ The rule or and 1566004, "For separate whether to the the 49, 51 Court (4th corresponding appropriate the in this a case jurisdiction, v. Target (citing state Klaxon (1941)). law F. law Kestler v. Cir. 1995) (w[T]he issue state law."). breached it the denied Saint November asserts a 2009 § storm. to Bd. of the of xxis bad The within Sorrell, outlined 209 below, faith issue and and costs is fees 583, Mfg. governs Saint claim See recover 38.2-209. 2d of 586 under the a Docket No. attorneys' insurance and 1. fees 487, 80, 86 Section 3 8.2-209 provides: in (4th is that policy when following Complaint and 496 exists alleges damages The 2004) dispute right Complaint its losses U.S. F.2d Jones Va. coverage contract John's of 313 533 diversity claims. (E.D. Co., Trustees, terms for court substantive whether express John's right Virginia Code the the Elec. therefore See GuideOne of to 42 <b) . 42 (b) reasons federal Supp. Stentor case. by to governs this governed the P. or trial separate Bowie v. attorneys' removed v. Virginia Rule For 2011). prejudice, Civ. to 17, BIFURCATION ANALYSIS 341 Co. R. judge." a Feb. case. is Corp., avoid Fed. trial for B. When to Va. order bifurcation request (E.D. may 1954) . that *12 pursuant bifurcate Cir. finds court issues...." sound discretion of F.2d at convenience, economize, more decision the WL provides: expedite one 2011 costs also under Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, in any civil case in which an insured individual sues his insurer to determine what coverage, if any, exists under his present policy or fidelity bond or the extent to which his insurer is liable for compensating a covered loss, the individual insured shall be entitled to recover from the insurer costs and court may award. shall not be such reasonable However, these unless fees costs and court the determines as the attorney's fees the not acting in good faith, has either denied or failed or refused to make payment to the insurer, coverage awarded attorney that insured under the policy. Va. Code. create in Ann. Ins. (W.D. that it 38.2-209{A) an independent coverage Bay § denied v. Jan. allows finds disputes. Co. Va. 9, the that court the against E.g., Court and is Rather, award the not failed the § 38.2-209.1 This to or of aware that 2012 a to Code Ann. a are function § fees v. and costs has if either payment to the Thus, claim is costs and views the *1 damages under Dragas Mgmt. different in of at 38.2-209(A). fees Co. bad faith 43614, substantive Ins. courts WL make not Massachusetts in good faith, attorneys' there district is does insurer's insured's on Builders Mut. federal it refused Va. statute 38.2-209(B); acting insurer recovery § 7: ll-cv-00342, policy." to courts No. This action for an Code Ann. insurer, or prerequisite 1 of 2012) . "the insured under Va. Decker, coverage judgment cause (2006). among Eastern and a Corp., Virginia Western Districts of Virginia as to whether an insured may even assert a claim for costs attorneys' the insurer. 2d 632, fees and Compare 635-36 (E.D. Cradle v. Va. before a judgment Monumental 2005) Life (holding, is Ins. pursuant obtained Co., to 354 against F. Supp. state court authority, that a § 38.2-209 claim for attorneys' fees and costs "may only be brought once a judgment is entered against the Defendant") and U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Commonwealth (Arlington 2004) (dismissing a bad faith Ins. Co., 64 Va. Cir. 408 claim as premature in light 709 F. Supp. existence under of 2d of its holding to that (W.D. Va. pursuant it is not of § Fibers, considered until proper cause action); Co. , (finding as No. the 3:07CV253, defendant's premature before contradiction § 38.2-209, notice of judgment the the U.S. absence question, the failure later district Va. of Cir. 591 judgment the against or or whether Ins. Although this at the insured has of a Prods., 2437661, a § the demand at is Cos., Saint argument v. *3-5 John's F. with but rather the at trial. reach See 2d is contrary (exercising the that to HHC only Assocs. Assurance v. for attorneys' Co. of fees Am., 256 Docket Saint to address it. John's properly separate request gives count. for [Saint John's] the denied coverage Decker, 2012 Mut. Ins. 21, 2008) the WL prayer count the or for at to recover to *2; make but a 2008 WL that the requisite costs and allegation 2d relief and necessary under section 38.2-209"). to that bad "neither satisfy to th[e] a Aspen 2009) . inappropriate claim, E.g., 505 Id. on faith); (E.D. address fees Va. at of whether and costs regardless law *5 and bad the Inc. of v. costs faith, policy." Jewelers (E.D. Va. intent to faith should separate requirements how undoubtedly fees in under Jewelers, of v. Va. for bad acting notice 33. bad faith claim). issue, the Court that, 2857191, 21, contract costs payment either deciding LLC is [attorneys'] see Adolf Nos. (E.D. "Virginia [GuideOne], as summary judgment Supp. notes 79 dismissing district. declines styled, the entry of when for attorneys' Court is that 3:08-CV-233, and is the right also request costs failed 43614, (noting fees and determine Co. , No. attorneys' separate court Court However, fees should The styled its the Fibers, n.33 and F. and and Wilson, questions this of the summary judgment judgment from the on Airways, claim discretion to grant on language precedent 2003) (granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's Because GuideOne has not raised the prematurity declines based than 655 summary decisions court's request in 2007) barred John's Tiger 630, Am. is rather See such separate Va. plain U.S. seeks because a (E.D. Court of and Clarendon "unpersuasive" bifurcating, Supp. argues v. *l-2 request 38.2-209 Supreme appropriate. 594 plaintiff's a not after judgment has been entered on the breach of 655 the case" is LLC challenged Saint not at complaint, to apply such a rule); issue need the as 1890104, of such holding but not the Court bifurcation Specialty WL although criticism improperly styled, bifurcation Therefore, until an GuideOne condition Styles fees entered courts a Ins. for attorneys7 Virginia court's as with (finding a bad faith demand premature before issue). premature on Styles claim the that Airways of faith denouement WL is acts 2006 "the Specialty Virginia") demand Concrete 2007 bad Aspen insurer made and argument a that in be the Structural v. in a (noting to 7:06CV00311, "must requires Ins. the faith (holding that 38.2-209 2010) LLC against No. defendant of Va. prerequisite bad Co., 2006) to a "judgment Ins. July 7, (E.D. Tiger claim Fire costs is law"); any Liberty Mut. 450 coverage Virginia precedent 441, suit for July seek be pled nor a relief Cos., 594 Farm Fire (citing its F. Supp. & Cas. several 630, Co., that 655 79 Virginia conclusion once 2d a (E.D. Va. 2009); 591 Court for bad is entered, 209 is a matter for the court, Fire table & to had Co. , the mean "jury"); faith for language); see State Mut. been the excluded in 79 the also Cuna Ins. to support only be of from bad & Ins. several an Soc'y v. Co., (citing under 97 faith in good faith"). denial § (unpublished finding as of its that an conclusion 38.2-209 § 140 after has 375 (4th of to S.E.2d should see plain Haghnazarian Cir. noting and to Ct. that v. 1990) it therefore act the 724, 727 when Winston 1996) standard insurance in good insurer's consider also Cir. not had fell insured). failed standard did 38.2-209's (Va. consideration reasonableness wdetermining whether a State 1996) well 591 Cir. court 1450 38.2- 38.2-209(A); §38.2-209); F.3d Cuna's under (holding that bad faith § Norman, the § court's light insurer reasonableness questions analysis Cas. decision) a plaintiff Winston v. Cir. as such a at Va. jury's the costs brought Once a of in in Code. question applies Mut. bad-faith when in "court" Cir. 21 (4th faith, court Co. , determining whether court (listing Fire 2009) Ct. whether and district bad Va. fees 1450 the Va. of to the court after the jury found for the In may not the jury.2 F.3d reference Wilson, question (deciding 97 acted statutory Farm attorneys' (affirming not that a recover Cas. decision) insured the Cir. <Va. State opinions determination the Farm right the has 2 Wilson v. judgment has been entered against an insured). judgment is Cir. Circuit claim Va. faith, conduct. (Va. v. State (unpublished as the coverage 1989) conducting proper has a Farm table test been made Because the reserved to judgment has cause question the court been of § 38.2-209 contract claim this bad failing to pay as evidence any would serve Therefore, in John's to an fees to the request fees to evidence of and bad costs from a only establish Fed. Saint breach claim as under following § bad faith, P. 42 (b) . Civ. question 38.2-209 any or well of consider Saint John's right costs of GuideOne's policy, such the after of its to R. is substantive insurance insurance bifurcate faith on reference jury. 38.2-209 bifurcation John's the The Court will attorneys' and § considered that Saint solely under insured Any under prejudice GuideOne's additional properly finds for offered faith against denying Saint faith is GRANTED. recover is appropriate. faith only bad Court request is alleged and entered action, John's of jury and verdict bad to any in Saint John's favor on Count I of the Complaint. C. GUIDEONE'S REQUEST TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED BAD FAITH In its exclude memorandum alleged GuideOne sets coverage evidence dispute of that facts. absent to be three and a 34. support of bad facts seemingly should Docket No. evidence sought forth dispute in be specific the faith it Court to or to that evidence declines request motion considers suggests limited This of in limine bifurcate relevant the to trial, to the determination supporting those to summarily exclude identifying the evidence excluded and explaining why such evidence is beyond the scope of the coverage dispute. 3 the specific because Saint intention of contract. Saint has offering a John's the GuideOne John's As Therefore, to examples has the breach of of no Court failed such result has set to contract in its memorandum, that it has on the issue of failure, the Court presumes intention not forth indicate evidence such need The Court will not address of offering address claim that such will breach such issues be any of that evidence. with respect presented to the jury. The summary Court now judgment. III. considers Docket No. GUIDEONE'S GuideOne's MOTION FOR PARTIAL whether to grant to 56 of Rule Clark, 561 exercise "even the F.3d its when or LEGAL are courts accorded deny 261, the Rules 271 discretion to SUMMARY discretion for of (4th deny standard partial JUDGMENT STANDARD motions Federal for 21. A. District motion summary Civil Cir. a judgment 2009). to determining Procedure. motion appears in Andrew The for have pursuant court summary been v. may judgment met." Id. 3 The Court acknowledges that GuideOne has filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of replacement cost and that Saint John's has filed several motions in limine seeking to limit or exclude evidence. See Docket Nos. 30, 45-54. The Court will address these motions before or during trial. generalized may be The requests Court's to instant limit the declination scope of applies admissible only contemplated by GuideOne's motion to bifurcate but those motions in limine currently before the court. to evidence any that omitted from (citations omitted); committee notes. exercise "the of Anderson, Denial the better see 477 of court's course U.S. also discretion be on the corresponding 21. As decision to question Va. for at Cir. 1450; in judgment The reaching Va. Wilson, 79 case Court John's Therefore, proceed not that full trial." judgment the to address costs. Cir. 271. at F. I for finds trial. whether or light to deny of its this whether the Bad faith is Haghnazarian, is entered against Supp. 2d at may obviate fees that and the the 21 properly the 655. the for under course U.S. alleged A need costs best 477 a Winston, matter of No. exercise of Anderson, any grant In 591; John's Docket 38.2-209(A); been on Count request § the 594 Court to chooses Ann. has Saint been met. Additionally, GuideOne and at have Va. Fibers, will appropriate summary question Code Tiger to advisory believes to discretion the judgment is fees Court judgment court. Saint an Plaintiff F.3d the after on 56 court partial and 651 trial, 140. for has only 38.2-209. this Court summary favor of the is proceed attorneys' E.g., insurer. § the at considered verdict for moved Andrew, bifurcate requirements if to faith for the without judgment P. ANALYSIS has bad request motion. discretion F.3d of observed, GuideOne's 97 GuideOne issue Civ. 255. B. Defendant R. summary would at Fed. at in 255. failures on the part of determination has GuideOne constitute been made on the issue motion for partial summary judgment As evidence set forth of alleged bifurcation. summary copy of above, In judgment this bad light is Order of DENIED. and is GuideOne's faith or this The Opinion bad to of until breach. after a GuideOne's therefore DENIED. motion in limine bifurcate ruling, Clerk to faith is counsel as motion REQUESTED of exclude GRANTED GuideOne's is to to record to for send for the parties. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Mark S. UNITED Norfolk, October Virginia 3, 2012 10 STATES Davis DISTRICT a JUDGE
]]>
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.
