Filed: Jan. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2015
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to this Court's January 8, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 185), the parties hereby provide the Court with the following Joint Status Report. As described in more detail in the parties' Joint Interim Status Report dated August 19, 2014 (Dkt. No. 178), this action is effectively comprised of two parts: Part I involved the insurers' claims against the Shapiro Defendants 1 and the Trust Defendants 2 regarding whether there was or is an indemn
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to this Court's January 8, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 185), the parties hereby provide the Court with the following Joint Status Report. As described in more detail in the parties' Joint Interim Status Report dated August 19, 2014 (Dkt. No. 178), this action is effectively comprised of two parts: Part I involved the insurers' claims against the Shapiro Defendants 1 and the Trust Defendants 2 regarding whether there was or is an indemni..
More
JOINT STATUS REPORT
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to this Court's January 8, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 185), the parties hereby provide the Court with the following Joint Status Report.
As described in more detail in the parties' Joint Interim Status Report dated August 19, 2014 (Dkt. No. 178), this action is effectively comprised of two parts: Part I involved the insurers' claims against the Shapiro Defendants1 and the Trust Defendants2 regarding whether there was or is an indemnity obligation arising from alleged environmental contamination at and emanating from property commonly referred to as Maryland Square Shopping Center. Part II involves claims between the insurance carriers for allocation and reimbursement of alleged defense costs incurred in the underlying litigation concerning the Maryland Square Shopping Center.
I. PART I
In accordance with various settlements, all claims by and against the Shapiro Defendants and Trust Defendants have been dismissed.
II. PART II
On October 21-22, 2014, the insurance carriers, the remaining parties to this case, engaged in mediation. A settlement in principle was reached among all parties.
On November 21, 2014, plaintiffs circulated a draft settlement and release agreement ("draft settlement agreement"). Proposed revisions to the draft settlement agreement were circulated by two carriers on December 2, 2014 and December 23, 2014, respectively. A third carrier, The American Insurance Company ("American"), has expressed concerns regarding the scope of the draft settlement agreement. In order to address these concerns, American has been communicating directly with counsel for the Shapiro Defendants and the Trust Defendants to secure the scope of release from these parties that would allow American to agree to the terms presently being proposed by the other settling insurers in the draft settlement agreement.3 American believes that it will likely reach agreement with the Shapiro Defendants. However, it is still in discussions with counsel for the Trust Defendants. In the event American is unable to reach agreement with both the Shapiro Defendants and Trust Defendants, it will not be in a position to approve of the terms contained in the draft settlement and the parties will need to revise the proposed draft.
The parties will provide the Court with an update regarding the status of American's revisions to the draft settlement agreement, if any, in 30 days.
Following the execution of the draft settlement agreement and receipt of settlement payments to be made to certain parties, plaintiffs' complaint and all counter- and cross-complaints will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
