Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

A C i S I C 1
Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 206 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 4
. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _
U DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and ) CASE NUMBER: i
MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) 3;03 CV 00644 (CFD)
l )
Piaimtrrs, )
)
v. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE WSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants, )
I
DAVID W. GWYNN and RAQUEL GWYNN, )
) CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiffs, ` ) 3:03 CV 1154 (CFD)
v. )
1
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants. ) AUGUST 31, 2006
DEFENTDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
TO THE RYAN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 1
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1
1
Defendants, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. and AIG
Technical Services, Inc. (collectively, "AIG" or "Defenda11ts"), hereby submit this Memorandum
of Law in Opposition to the Motion For Extension of Time submitted by Plaintiffs, Bruce Charles
1
Ryan, Russell William Newton, Robert Fitzpatrick, and Merit Capital Associates, Inc.
(collectively, the "Ryan Plaintiffs").
The Ryan Plaintiffs claim that they need to "complete certain discovery" before responding
l to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. However, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

l
Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 206 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 4
Judgment is based solelv on the language of the Policy and the allegations of the underlying
A l
claims (Sowell’s Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim). In the Motion,
·
Defendants argue that the allegations of the Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim
triggered the Poliey’s exclusions; furthermore, waiver, estoppel and bad faith are inapplicable as a
p matter of law. Based solely on the language of the Policy and the Statement of Claim and
Amended Statement of Claim, Defendants argue that AIG had no duty to defend, no duty to
indemnify Plaintiffs, and no liability in connection with the Policy. Thus, additional discovery
would be completely irrelevant to the disposition of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.1
The Ryan Plaintiffs claim that AIG’s counsel failed to advise whether AIG objects or
. l
consents to their motion for extension. This is simply untrue. AIG’s counsel advised the Ryan l
l
I
Plaintiffs’ counsel in an August 18, 2006 email that:
If you read the motion you will see that it raises purely legal issues .... Therefore, the
discovery that you intend to conduct is irrelevant to the summary judgment motion. As
such, I cannot agree to an extension of time to respond for discovery reasons. If, however,
you are telling me that you need an extension for other reason, such as because of a
planned vacation, I would extend a professional courtesy. As you know, I have thus far
consented to every request that you have made of me for extensions of time ....
l
(Emphasis supplied).2
Plaintiffs should not be allowed to delay a ruling on Defendants? Motion for Summary
Judgment while they engage in costly discovery (including depositions in Arizona) that have no
l
l
I The Ryan Plaintiffs express "surprise" that AIG submitted no affidavit in support of its Motion.
Motion for Extension, p.7 n. 4. No affidavit is necessary, however, since AIG’s argument is
grounded solely on the Policy’s provisions and the allegations of the Statement of Claim and
Amended Statement of Claim. There is no dispute as to the language of the Policy, the Statement
of Claim, or the Amended Statement of Claim. `
2 The Ryan Plaintiffs also claim that the continued deposition of AIG’s representative was
postponed because AIG requested mediation but then refused to address Plaintiffs’ "tenns and
conditions" for mediation and did not "pursue the mediation it claimed it wanted." Motion for
Extension, pp.5—6. However, mediation did not go forward because Plaintiffs’ required "terms and
conditions" included an “offer of real $$" as a prerequisite to engaging in mediation-
. - z - PMB_3l0574_2lDGREENSPAN

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 206 _ Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 4 l
1
i
1
bearing on the legal issues raised in Defendants’ Motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully {
- i I
request that the Court deny the Ryan Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time. --
E
Respectfully Submitted,
1
DEFENDANTS/ COUNTERPLAINTIF F S l
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
and AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
· BY THEIR ATTORNEYS,
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP I
1
By:%·./K Q g 1
Mark B. Seiger 1
Fed. Bar No. ct05580 1
David S. Samuels
Fed. Bar No. ct24460 ·
90 State House Square l
Hartford, CT 06103-2715
l - Tel: (860) 525-5065 g
Fax: (860) 527-4198
Email: [email protected]
- Email: dsarnuelsgQ},eapdlaw.com
John D. Hughes
Massachusetts BBO # 243660
1 1 1 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Tel: (617) 951-3373 i
Fax: (617) 439-4170
Email: [email protected]
l
Donna M. Greenspan 1
Florida Bar No.: 059110
One North Clematis Street
suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 I
n Tel: (561) 833-7700
- Fax: (561) 655-8719
Email: dg;eenspan@,eapdlaw.com
- 3 - PMB_310574_2fDGREENSPAN

r 1
Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 206 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 4 of 4

_ CERTIFICATION
E
l
I hereby certify that on August 3, 2006, the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to the Ryan Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept
4 i
electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation ofthe
court’s electronic tiling system or by mailto anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated
on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this document through the court’s CM/EC]?
System.
V ‘ Mak B. sarge l



l


i
n
l
. E
t

i

- 4 - Pix/|B__3l05?4“2/DGREENSPAN