Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., 3:13-cv-005801-JST (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150313791 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT FILING OF CROSS-COMPLAINT TO IMPLEAD IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . WHEREAS, the above-captioned actions address the scope of products liability coverage, if any, available to Intuitive Surgical, Inc. ("Intuitive") for the policy year March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014; WHEREAS, Intuitive's products liability policy for the preceding year, March 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013, was issued by Ironshore Specialty In
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT FILING OF CROSS-COMPLAINT TO IMPLEAD IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

WHEREAS, the above-captioned actions address the scope of products liability coverage, if any, available to Intuitive Surgical, Inc. ("Intuitive") for the policy year March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014;

WHEREAS, Intuitive's products liability policy for the preceding year, March 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013, was issued by Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company ("Ironshore");

WHEREAS, Intuitive notes that it is in a dispute with Ironshore over whether claims tolled during the Ironshore policy period are covered under that policy;

WHEREAS, Intuitive notes that it intends to file suit against Ironshore and submits the attached proposed cross-complaint (the "Cross-Complaint") for the Court's consideration;

WHEREAS, Intuitive further notes that Intuitive now seeks to implead Ironshore into the instant litigation because the same third party claims that Plaintiffs Illinois Union Insurance Company ("Illinois Union") and Navigators Specialty Insurance Company ("Navigators," and together with Illinois Union, "Plaintiffs") assert should have been disclosed in Intuitive's applications for product liability insurance for the 2013-2014 policy year are also the subject of Intuitive's coverage dispute with Ironshore;

WHEREAS, Intuitive further notes that this overlap of operative facts creates a risk of inconsistent verdicts if the cases are tried separately; that many of the same witnesses will need to be deposed in connection with the Ironshore action as in the instant litigation; and that significant efficiencies will thus be realized if the cases proceed jointly;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs do not object to Intuitive's impleading of Ironshore into the present case in the interest of avoiding duplicative and wasteful discovery;

WHEREAS, Navigators has agreed to the concurrent filing of its statement of non-opposition to this Stipulation;

WHEREFORE, the parties herein stipulate as follows:

1. Upon entry of the Court's Order approving the terms of this stipulation, Intuitive will promptly file and serve the Cross-Complaint.

2. Once Ironshore has been served, Intuitive and Illinois Union request that the Court set a status conference to discuss setting a revised case schedule.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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