Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 3:15-cv-01313-JSW. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160106892 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jan. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS AS MODIFIED JEFFREY S. WHITE , District Judge . RECITALS Plaintiff/counterdefendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD), defendant/counterclaimant/third-party claimant/counterdefendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, and third-party defendant and counterclaimant Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD, jointly submit this Stipulation to request that the Court modify the August 5
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS AS MODIFIED

RECITALS

Plaintiff/counterdefendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD), defendant/counterclaimant/third-party claimant/counterdefendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, and third-party defendant and counterclaimant Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD, jointly submit this Stipulation to request that the Court modify the August 5, 2015 Amended Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters by extending the applicable trial and pretrial deadlines by 90 days. The reasons for this request and stipulation are as follows:

1. This coverage dispute arises from a fatal accident that occurred on Saturday, October 19, 2013 on the track between the Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill BARTD stations. Christopher Sheppard, Manager of BARTD Track & Grounds, and Laurence Daniels, a contractor working for Anil Verma Associates, Inc. ("AVA"), an engineering firm that is insured by Travelers were on the track the afternoon of October 19 when they were struck by a train and killed.

2. Mr. Daniel's heirs have sued BARTD for wrongful death in a civil suit styled, Amber Daniels, et. al, v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Alameda County Superior Court No. RG14725711. Plaintiffs essentially allege that BARTD negligently failed to protect Mr. Daniels while he was working on tracks during rail car movement.

3. BARTD filed a cross-complaint against AVA in the Daniels action for declaratory relief, and for implied and express indemnity and contribution.

4. BARTD is an additional insured under the Travelers policy under some circumstances. BARTD tendered its defense of the Daniels lawsuit to Travelers under the additional insured endorsement. Travelers denied that tender. BARTD filed this insurance action to determine whether Travelers has an obligation to defend.

5. Travelers filed a third-party claim against Sentinel Insurance Company, which insured Mr. Daniels' company (Daniels Engineering). By this third-party claim, Travelers contends that should the Court find that Travelers owes BARTD a defense, that defense should be provided by Sentinel, and not by Travelers. Sentinel denies the claims asserted against it and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief.

6. The parties have been working cooperatively to resolve this coverage dispute in the most efficient way possible. In September 2015, BARTD and the insurers attended an initial mediation session in the underlying case. Although some progress was made, the wrongful death claims were not resolved. The parties to this insurance action, however, were able to discuss in principle a potential settlement strategy that would encompass the insurers' defense obligations to BARTD, and BARTD's liability claims against AVA (Travelers' insured), thus resolving the claims involved in this action.

7. Unfortunately, settlement progress has been delayed by the wrongful death plaintiffs' efforts to amend their pleadings to assert a survivorship claim (although Mr. Daniels died instantly), which they contend increases the value of their case by several million dollars. Pleading challenges to that claim are currently pending. It will be difficult to engage in productive settlement negotiations encompassing the wrongful death claims until those pleading challenges are resolved. BARTD also has learned about a peripheral issue involving another agency that could potentially affect BARTD's settlement. BARTD is working to sort that issue out now.

8. In addition to participation in mediation in the underlying case, BART and the insurers agreed to mediation and have had several telephone conferences with our appointed mediator, Richard Sipos. Mr. Sipos has been a very good resource. The parties and Mediator agree that it makes most sense to resolve the insurance claims in conjunction with mediation of the underlying wrongful death suit.

9. Given these circumstances, including the delay in the underlying case, and the parties' continued desire to work toward a global resolution without incurring unnecessary litigation costs, our mediator Mr. Sipos suggested, and the parties agreed, that the parties ask this Court to modify the August 5, 2015 Amended Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters by extending all deadlines by 90 days.

STIPULATION

For these reasons, it is hereby stipulated by and between San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD), Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, and Sentinel Insurance Company LTD, through their respective counsel of record, subject to the Court's approval, that the current Amended Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters be modified to extend all deadlines by 90 days. The modified dates are noted in bold:

A. DATES Jury Trial Date: Monday, December 12, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. Jury Selection: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. Pre-Trial Conference: Monday, November 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Last Day to Hear Friday, August 12 Dispositive Motions: Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Last day for Expert Discovery: Thursday, October 27, 2016 Last day for Expert Disclosure: Monday, October 3, 2016 Close of Non-expert Discovery: Thursday, September 8, 2016 Deadline to Mediate: Thursday, April 28, 2016

The parties appreciate the Court's attention and consideration.

ORDER

The parties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED. AS MODIFIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer