Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

AMERIS BANK v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, CV413-241. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20151002n29 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court are Defendant Lexington Insurance Company's ("Lexington") Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Witness (Doc. 44), Motion to Strike Supplemental Report of Plaintiff's Expert Witness (Doc. 62), and Motion to Strike Sur-Reply of Ameris Bank (Doc. 74), and Defendant Coastal Biofuels, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46). The Court recently disposed of Plaintiff Ameris Bank's claims against Defendant Le
More

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant Lexington Insurance Company's ("Lexington") Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Witness (Doc. 44), Motion to Strike Supplemental Report of Plaintiff's Expert Witness (Doc. 62), and Motion to Strike Sur-Reply of Ameris Bank (Doc. 74), and Defendant Coastal Biofuels, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46). The Court recently disposed of Plaintiff Ameris Bank's claims against Defendant Lexington. (Doc. 82.) Accordingly, Defendant Lexington's motions (Doc. 44; Doc. 62; Doc. 74) are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

With respect to Defendant Lexington's third-party complaint,1 Defendant Coastal has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 46.) However, this motion was filed long before the Court ruled on Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lexington. Because Lexington's liability has now been established, the Court feels it prudent to permit Defendants Coastal and Lexington to file any supplemental briefing concerning Defendant Lexington's right to indemnity.

Accordingly, Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of this order to supplement their briefing with respect to Defendant Coastal's Motion for Summary Judgment. In the interim, the Court will HOLD IN ABEYANCE Defendant Coastal's motion until it has had the benefit of any supplemental briefing the parties may file. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to administratively terminate Defendant Coastal's Motion for Summary Judgment for statistical purposes only.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. While not entirely clear from its third-party complaint, Defendant Lexington's claim against Defendant Coastal appears to be one for indemnity based on Defendant Coastal's wrongful conversion of the insurance proceeds. The third-party complaint does not list any substantive count, only that Defendant Lexington is entitled to indemnification from Defendant Coastal, who allegedly "converted the insurance proceeds paid to them by Lexington to their own use." (Doc. 17 ¶ 9; accord. Id. ¶ 11.)
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