Filed: Sep. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN INSURERS' MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING INSURERS BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Certain Defendants' Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Barring Contribution Claims by Non-Settling Insurers (the "Motion"). 1 The Court has considered the motion and all pleadings and filings on record. The Court GRANTS the Motion and APPROVES the Confidential Settlement Agre
Summary: ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN INSURERS' MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING INSURERS BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Certain Defendants' Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Barring Contribution Claims by Non-Settling Insurers (the "Motion"). 1 The Court has considered the motion and all pleadings and filings on record. The Court GRANTS the Motion and APPROVES the Confidential Settlement Agree..
More
ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN INSURERS' MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING INSURERS
BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Certain Defendants' Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Barring Contribution Claims by Non-Settling Insurers (the "Motion").1 The Court has considered the motion and all pleadings and filings on record.
The Court GRANTS the Motion and APPROVES the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") between plaintiff King County and these defendants with regard to King County's claims for coverage under the these defendants' policies. The Court further FINDS and ORDERS:
1. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable and is the result of arm's-length negotiations between parties represented by experienced environmental coverage counsel. The Settlement Agreement is not collusive, inadequate, or entered into for any improper purpose.
2. The non-settling insurers are adequately protected based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement and King County's representations related to potential setoff for settlements in this case. See King County v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64763 at *14 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018).
3. The Court ORDERS that the cross-claims and counterclaims by and against these defendants in this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court further ORDERS that any other claims for contribution, allocation, subrogation, and equitable indemnity, and any other cause of action in connection with this action against these defendants by any other insurers of King County and/or The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle are hereby BARRED.
4. The Court DIRECTS that this Order shall be entered as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
