AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Daniel shafer gaslight inn11/1/2023 ![]() Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Mutual on Outzen’s claims against Mutual and in favor of the Crest Defendants on the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Crest Defendants, denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. ♧ After considering briefing and oral argument, the superior court found that: (1) disputed issues of material fact precluded entry of summary judgment on Gaslight’s claims against Mutual for breach of contract and bad faith (2) Outzen, as a non-party to the insurance policy, lacked standing to bring any claims against Mutual (3) the Crest Defendants owed no duty to Outzen, a non-client and (4) “no credible evidence” substantiated Gaslight’s claim that the Property’s damages exceeded the insurance coverage secured by the Crest Defendants. Like the Crest Defendants, Mutual also argued that Outzen’s claims should be dismissed because she was not a party to the insurance contract. Mutual, in turn, separately moved for summary judgment, asserting that “earth movement,” not the accident, caused the Property’s structural damage. ![]() ♦ After the close of discovery, the Crest Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that, as commercial insurance brokers, they “d not owe Outzen, a non-client, a duty of care,” and therefore “had no obligation with respect to her personal insurance needs or advising her on the lack of personal coverage by a commercial policy.” The Crest Defendants also asserted that summary judgment should be entered in their favor because Gaslight failed to demonstrate that its damages exceeded the policy’s coverage limit. Along with contract and bad faith claims against Mutual and negligence claims against Leyva and Artaga, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Crest Defendants negligently failed to obtain appropriate insurance coverage and inform Outzen that her omission from the Gaslight policy as a named insured could prevent her from recovering any personal losses. Decision of the Court ♥ The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Mutual, Prosser, Crest (Prosser’s employer), Leyva, and Macrina Mota Artaga (the owner of the car involved in the accident). Approximately seven months after Gaslight submitted its second claim, Mutual denied it, asserting the additional property damage was unrelated to the accident and caused by the City’s irrigation system. But the City of Glendale (“City”) eventually condemned the Property, requiring all occupants to vacate the premises. While the investigation was underway, Mutual paid for some repairs under a reservation of rights. ![]() ♤ At that point, Mutual opened a second claim and hired contractors to investigate the cause of the additional damage to the Property. As the cracks expanded and worsened throughout the Property, Outzen notified Prosser, who was Gaslight’s insurance agent, of the additional damage. ♣ Meanwhile, the Property’s tenants began noticing cracks in the floors and walls of their businesses. After Outzen submitted a repair estimate for the damages, Mutual paid Gaslight. Outzen, the proprietor of the Inn and a member of Gaslight, promptly notified Gaslight’s insurance carrier, Mutual of Enumclaw (“Mutual”), of the accident. BACKGROUND ♢ While operating a motor vehicle, Victor Leyva lost control and collided (“the accident”) into a support pillar of a commercial building (“the Property”) that had three tenants The Gaslight Inn (“the Inn”), Olde Towne Glendale Wine Bar (“OTG”), and Arizona Skin Laser. The Plaintiffs also challenge the court’s entry of a partial final judgment at this stage of the proceedings. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ♡ Gaslight Inn, LLC (“Gaslight”) and Teresa Outzen (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”) appeal the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Jason Prosser and the Crest Insurance Group, LLC (“Crest”) (collectively, “the Crest Defendants”). Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Peterson Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Crest Insurance Company and The Prossers GASLIGHT INN, et al. Ponzo Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants John Rollie Wightman PC, Scottsdale By John Rollie Wightman Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Farhang & Medcoff PLLC, Tucson By Ali J. ![]() Martin, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Merlin Law Group PA, Phoenix By Michael J. 1 CA-CV 20-0600 FILED 8-24-2021 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants/Appellees. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE GASLIGHT INN LLC, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |