Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

James K. Thurston, ARDC No. 6202021 Patrick K. Cary, ARDC No. 6227274 Daniel E. Tranen, ARDC No. 6244878 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 120 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 704-0550 Facsimile: (312) 704-1522 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Mark G. Worischeck, No. 011147 J. Steven Sparks, No. 015561 SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 3030 North Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3099 Telephone: (602) 532-5795 Facsimile: (602) 230-5054 Attorneys for Defendant Carolina Casualty Insurance Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Alanco Technologies, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant. Defendant Carolina Casualty Insurance Company ("Carolina") for its Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION As set forth in Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment, there are numerous reasons to deny coverage for all or part of the legal expenses related to the Amended Lawsuit. Carolina shall not repeat its arguments contained in its Motion for Summary Judgment herein, but it expressly adopts and incorporates those arguments herein.
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 1 of 13

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case No.: CV-04-0789-PHX-DGC DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

Carolina's argument herein shall be confined to the two points set forth in Alanco Motion, that: (i) Carolina purportedly has no "sustainable defenses" left to Alanco's coverage action; and (ii) Alanco's attempt to recover legal expenses in three other lawsuits referenced nowhere in Alanco's Second Amended Complaint. As to Carolina's "sustainable" coverage defenses, in letters to Alanco as well as discovery answers to Alanco in this litigation, Carolina has exhaustively explained its coverage arguments with respect to the "no Loss" argument and the fraud exclusion. Indeed, Carolina's coverage defenses are expressly set forth in two letters by Carolina to Alanco ­ two letters which are Exhibits to Alanco's Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Carolina's coverage arguments are "well preserved" and serve as the basis for Carolina's separately filed Motion for Summary Judgment. As to Alanco's legal expenses, Alanco seeks coverage for the Amended Lawsuit. However, Alanco also seeks almost $240,000 in fees and costs incurred in three other lawsuits unrelated to the underlying Amended Lawsuit. Apparently, Alanco had hoped that Carolina would not discover these improper legal fees and costs that were intermixed among the fees and costs for the underlying Amended Lawsuit. Indeed, Alanco did its best to conceal these improper fees and costs by first refusing to produce its legal invoices -- and then producing them with only two days prior to the Court-imposed discovery deadline. However, Alanco's claim for these clandestinely incurred fees and costs must fail because in order to substantiate its claim for these fees and costs, Alanco has relied on: (i) documents that were never identified by Alanco in its Initial Disclosures; (ii) documents that were never produced in discovery in response to Carolina's discovery requests; and

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(iii) documents that Carolina saw for the first time when they were attached as exhibits to Alanco's present Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Alanco has relied on two Affidavits that set forth "legal conclusions" instead of "facts." As set forth in Carolina's separately-filed Motion to Strike (which Carolina incorporates herein by reference), these documents and Affidavits ­ and the Statement of Facts based on these documents and
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 2 of 13

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

Affidavits ­ must be stricken. Accordingly, Alanco has no admissible evidence to support its claim for the legal fees and costs related to these three other lawsuits. II. ARGUMENT A. Alanco Is Not Entitled to Its Legal Fees and Costs

Alanco's present Motion for Summary Judgment relies upon evidence that is inadmissible. Specifically, Alanco's Second Amended Complaint against Carolina seeks coverage for: (i) an October 2002 Letter (the "October 2002 Letter"); (ii) the original complaint filed by Richard Jones against the Alanco Defendants in 2003 (the "Original Lawsuit"); and (iii) the Second Amended Complaint filed against the Alanco Defendants (the "Amended Complaint"). Alanco's present Motion for Summary Judgment, however, also seeks legal fees and costs incurred in three lawsuits referenced nowhere in the Second Amended Complaint, including: (i) a lawsuit commenced by Alanco against Richard Jones in 2005 for slander (the "Slander Lawsuit"); (ii) Alanco's claim as a "creditor" in the TSI bankruptcy proceedings (the "TSI Bankruptcy"); and (iii) a lawsuit filed in 2005 in Nevada against Alanco and its directors and officers (the "Nevada Lawsuit"). The following facts are undisputed: · It is undisputed that Alanco's Second Amended Complaint for coverage against Carolina does not contain a single allegation related to the Slander Lawsuit, the TSI Bankruptcy or the Nevada Lawsuit. (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶12.) It is also undisputed that Alanco never disclosed or identified documents related to the Slander Lawsuit, the TSI Bankruptcy or the Nevada Lawsuit in its Initial Disclosures ­ and presently relied upon in Alanco's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶13.) It is undisputed that Alanco never disclosed or identified documents related to the Slander Lawsuit, the TSI Bankruptcy or the Nevada Lawsuit in response to Carolina's direct discovery requests concerning other litigation, including civil and bankruptcy litigation. (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶14.)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

·

·

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 91

-3-

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 3 of 13

1 2 3

·

It is undisputed that Alanco has not produced a single document in discovery to Carolina relating to the Slander Lawsuit, the TSI Bankruptcy or the Nevada Lawsuit. (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶15.) 1. Documents Relied Upon by Alanco in Its Statement of Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment Were Never Identified or Disclosed to Carolina in Discovery, and Never Produced to Carolina in Discovery

4 5 6

Alanco's "Statement of Facts" submitted in conjunction with its Motion for
7

Summary Judgment relies upon numerous "facts" derived from documents that were
8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

never identified or disclosed to Carolina, and never produced to Carolina during discovery. Specifically, Alanco's Initial Disclosures (dated February 14, 2005), in response to the inquiry to identify "all documents...in plaintiffs' possession, custody or control that may be used to support their claims", Alanco only identified: "See Exhibits to [prior] summary judgment motions." (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶1.) In Question No. 1 of Carolina's Interrogatories to Alanco, Carolina inquired: "identify all documents which related to or evidence the allegations set forth in your Second Amended Complaint." Alanco answered: "Plaintiffs refer Carolina to the Initial Disclosures filed on February 14, 2005." (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶2.) Consequently, the only documents to which Alanco identified in its Initial Disclosures and in response to Carolina's Interrogatories that "support their claims" or which "related to or evidence the allegation set forth in your Second Amended Complaint" are the "Exhibits to summary judgment motions."

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

In its present Motion for Summary Judgment, Alanco relies on Exhibits B, C,
21 22 23 24 25 26

D, F, G, and H. None of these documents are "Exhibits to [prior] summary judgment motions." (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶10.) Moreover, none of these documents were ever identified, disclosed or produced to Carolina during discovery. (Carolina's

Response SOF, ¶11.) As set forth in more detail in Carolina's Motion to Strike, these exhibits cannot be considered by the Court in Alanco's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 4 of 13

-4-

1 2 3

2.

Alanco Refuses to Produce Documents Relating to Other Litigation in Which Alanco and/or Its Directors and Officers Are Involved

Carolina also served a specific Interrogatory upon the Alanco Plaintiffs to:
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

"[i]dentify all litigation" involving the Alanco Plaintiffs1 "including civil, bankruptcy ...litigation." Alanco refused to provide an answer to this Interrogatory, stating: "Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it is vague, overbroad, and because it seeks information not relevant to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case." (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶4.) Alanco refused to provide any information responsive to Carolina's Interrogatory concerning "all litigation engaged in by any of the Plaintiffs...including civil...and bankruptcy litigation" ­ indeed, Alanco called such documents "not relevant to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case." (Carolina's Response SOF, ¶4.) Accordingly, Alanco cannot now use evidence relating to two claims involving "civil...litigation" and another claim involving "bankruptcy... litigation" to support or prove its demand for legal fees and costs related to these lawsuits. As set forth in Carolina's separate Motion to

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Strike, this evidence must be stricken from the record and deemed inadmissible in Alanco's present Motion for Summary Judgment.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3.

Alanco Has No Evidence to Support Its Claim for Coverage Related to the Three Other Matters

After appropriately striking the documents, Affidavits and SOF based on inadmissible evidence (see, Carolina's Motion to Strike) Alanco has no evidence to support its claim for coverage for the legal fees and costs related to the Slander

The "Definitions" section of Carolina's Interrogatories states: "Alanco Technology, Inc, Technology Systems International Inc, Robert Kauffman, Elizabeth Kauffman, Greg Oester and Linda Oester are the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. For the purposes of these Interrogatories, Plaintiffs shall include each and every one of them...".
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91

1

-5-

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 5 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

Lawsuit, the TSIN Bankruptcy and the Nevada Lawsuit. Accordingly, all fees and costs related to these matters (per Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment: $238,239.88) must be denied. 4. The Alanco Legal Fees Are Barred By Other Policy Terms and Conditions

Even assuming arguendo that this Court permitted Alanco to rely on evidence never before provided to Carolina to support its claims for fees and costs, as set forth in Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment, these fees and costs are not covered. In addition, Alanco is only afforded direct coverage for its liabilities for a "Securities Claim." Alanco has presented this Court with absolutely no evidence that: (i) Alanco's prosecution of a Slander Lawsuit against a third-party; and (ii) Alanco's claim as a "creditor" against the TSI estate in the TSI Bankruptcy -- constitutes a "Securities Claim." Accordingly, there is no coverage for Alanco for either the Slander Lawsuit or the TSI Bankruptcy. The Policy only provides coverage for any "Claim first made...during the Policy Period." Alanco's Second Amended Complaint against Carolina sets forth only two Carolina Policies, with Policy Periods from November 15, 2001 until November 15, 2002 and November 15, 2002 until November 15, 2003. Amended Complaint, ¶¶4 and 5.) (Alanco's Second

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

TSI filed for bankruptcy on December 3, 2003

(Alanco's SOF, Ex.F) and the Nevada Lawsuit was filed on February 22, 2005 (Alanco's SOF, Ex.D) ­ both after the Policy Periods of both Policies. Alanco has presented this Court with absolutely no evidence or argument why either Carolina Policy is triggered by the TSI Bankruptcy or Nevada Lawsuit, which are both not a "Claim first made...during the Policy Period." Section V.D. of the Policy provides that "one Retention amount shall apply to each and every Claim." As such, either a $200,000, $150,000, or $75,000 retention would be applicable to each of the three claims (the Slander Lawsuit, the TSI Bankruptcy and the Nevada Lawsuit), depending under which Policy the lawsuits were
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 6 of 13

-6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

placed under. B. Carolina Has Properly Set Forth Its Coverage Defenses

Alanco's Motion argues that "[Carolina] have no sustainable remaining defenses." Although Alanco acknowledges Carolina's Answer set forth "other

defenses", Alanco incorrectly argues "none of which were pursued at any point throughout the history of this case." Contrary to Alanco's argument, Carolina has identified the precise defenses which it presently relies upon in both its discovery responses and its briefs in this litigation. Specifically, in Carolina's prior letters to Alanco as well as its pleadings in this coverage litigation, Carolina has set forth its arguments on: (i) the "no Loss" argument; and (ii) the "final adjudication" requirement for the fraud exclusion in the Policy ­ the two bases of Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment. Alanco's Interrogatory No. 17 states: "the `Affirmative Defenses' section of your Answer, you allege that `Plaintiffs' claim for damages is barred as restitutionary damages are not `Loss' under such policies.' Please state all factual evidence and legal authority upon which you rely in support of this alleged affirmative defense." Subject to its objections, Carolina Answered: "this information has been previously provided to Plaintiffs in letters, pleadings and exhibits to pleadings...and briefs, and exhibits to briefs, filed with the Court." (Carolina's Answers to Alanco's Interrogatories, Ex. I to Alanco's SOF.) Specifically, the precise "no Loss" argument made in Carolina's present Motion for Summary Judgment was made in "letters" "previously provided to [Alanco]", including Carolina's letters of April 2, 2003 and October 20, 2003. Indeed, the April 2,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2003 letter is attached as Exhibit C to Alanco's Second Amended Complaint and the October 20, 2003 letter is referenced at ¶30 of Alanco's Second Amended Complaint and is attached as Exhibit 18 to the "Stipulated Statement of Facts" filed by Alanco's counsel on March 11, 2005 with this Court pursuant to Alanco's prior Motion for Summary Judgment. See, Stipulation of Facts, ¶¶21 (and Exhibit 18 thereto).
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 7 of 13

-7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

By letter dated April 2, 2003 to Alanco's counsel (i.e., Exhibit C to Alanco's Second Amended Complaint), Carolina stated of the "no Loss" argument: "The Jones Lawsuit Does Not Constitute "Loss" Under Carolina's Policy In Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, 272 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2001)(the second decision by the Seventh Circuit in the Kiewit case), the Seventh Circuit held -- like here -- that allegations of misrepresentations relating to an acquisition do not constitute "loss" under a D&O insurance policy because of the remedial nature of the remedy sought. In Level 3, plaintiffs were 20% owners of MFS. In 1992, plaintiffs sold their 20% interest in MFS to a subsidiary of Level 3 (collectively, Level 3). Thereafter, Level 3 conducted an IPO of a portion of its stock. Plaintiffs then filed suit alleging Level 3 made misrepresentations during the acquisition process thereby resulting in an unequitable acquisition price. Level 3's D&O insurer thereafter denied coverage for a settlement of this lawsuit asserting Level 3 had suffered no "loss." The Seventh Circuit agreed. In particular, the Seventh Circuit summarized the D&O insurer's argument that misrepresentations made to an acquired company do not constitute "loss" under a D&O Policy: "The plaintiffs had sold shares in their corporation to Level 3 and charged that they had done so because of fraudulent representations that Level 3 had made. In effect, Level 3 was accused of having obtained the plaintiffs' company by false pretences; and plaintiffs suit sought to rescind the transaction and recover their shares, or rather the monetary value of the shares because their company can no longer be reconstituted." Id. at 910. The Seventh Circuit stated: "[t]he interpretive principle for which [the D&O insurer] contends -- that a `loss' within the meaning of an insurance contract does not include the restoration of an ill-gotten gain -- is clearly right." Id. at 910. Given these facts, the Seventh Circuit held: "An insured
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

-8-

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 8 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

incurs no loss within the meaning of the insurance contract by being compelled to return property that it had stolen, even if a more polite word than `stolen' is used to characterize the claim for the property's return." Id. at 911. Similarly, in the present case, Alanco is alleged to have made misrepresentations during the acquisition of TSI Nevada's stock. As noted by the Seventh Circuit, damages that are "restitutionary in character...to divest the defendant of the present value of the property obtained by fraud", are not within the definition of "loss." Here, TSI Nevada seeks "restitutionary" damages including the imposition of a "constructive trust": (i) to enjoin the merger from occurring; (ii) for the merger to be "rescinded" and TSI Nevada "returned to the status quo"; and, alternatively (iii) for compensatory damages. Indeed, as stated by the court in Conseco, Inc. v. National Union, 2002 WL 31961447 (Ind. Cir. 2002): "if someone represents the value of something and then you purchase it at that price, and later it is discovered the seller's representations were not the truth, the only damages you can obtain is the difference between the value at which the item was purchased and its true value ­ restitutionary damages for the ill-gotten gain of the seller." Conseco at p. 14. (A copy of the Conseco decision is attached hereto.) Similarly here, the crux of Jones' allegations are that Alanco misrepresented the value of its company and, thereby, was able to fraudulently acquire TSI Nevada with its stock for an inadequate price. TSI Nevada seeks rescission of the acquisition and the imposition of a constructive trust or, alternatively, damages for the "difference between the value at which the item [TSI Nevada's stock] was purchased and its true value." Conseco at p.14. Indeed, the Jones Lawsuit specifically alleges "[a]s a result of the above-described conduct, TSI Nevada has been stripped of its assets...and has been left with a block of Alanco stock with materially and substantively less value...than that which was promised to the TSI Nevada shareholders." (Complaint, ¶73.) Like in Level 3, TSI Nevada -- seeking rescission of the acquisition -- is seeking that Alanco "return property that it
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 91

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

-9-

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 9 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

had stolen, even if a more polite word than `stolen' is used to characterize the claim for the property's return." Or, alternatively, like in Level 3 and Conseco, TSI Nevada is seeking compensatory damages for the "difference between the value at which the item was purchased and its true value." By definition, this is restitutionary in nature and not reimbursable "loss" under Carolina's Policy." Similarly, by letter dated October 20, 2003 to Alanco's counsel (attached as Exhibit 18 to the "Stipulated Statement of Facts" filed by Alanco's counsel on March 11, 2005 with this Court), Carolina stated of the "no Loss" argument: "We further note that the lawsuit will not lead to covered "Loss" under Carolina's policy based on Level 3 Communications v. Federal Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2001). That argument does not change based on the identity of the plaintiff in this lawsuit. Alanco is alleged to have made misrepresentations during the acquisition of "Old TSI's" stock such that it was able to fraudulently acquire "Old TSI" with its stock for an inadequate price. This type of loss is restitutionary in nature and not reimbursable under Carolina's policy." Indeed, in its previous Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Carolina argued:
"The Jones Lawsuit also seeks "restitutionary" damages. Specifically, Carolina has asserted that Alanco is not entitled to coverage under cases directly on point, such as Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2001), and Conseco, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2002 WL 31961447 (Ind. Cir. 2002)."

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(Carolina's August 2, 2004 Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 14.) Similarly, with respect to the fraud exclusion, Carolina's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment stated: "In addition, there are other Policy terms that could also be implicated. Count III of the Jones Lawsuit is for "FRAUD." Should a verdict be entered against Alanco solely on this count,

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 91

- 10 -

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 10 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

Clause IV.B. of the Policy, via endorsement ("the Fraud Exclusion"), provides that there is not coverage for any Claim: based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving any criminal or deliberate fraudulent act; provided, however, this exclusion shall not apply unless a judgment or other final adjudication adverse to any of the Insureds in such Claim shall establish that such Insureds committed such criminal or deliberate fraudulent act. Thus, the Fraud Exclusion may apply, depending upon the outcome of the Jones Lawsuit. Summary Judgment in favor of Alanco, therefore, could not be rendered until the Jones Lawsuit is over." Id. at 15. Furthermore, in Carolina's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment filed with this Court on April 8, 2005, Carolina argued "there are numerous other

11 12

provisions in the Policy that could limit or preclude coverage" so as not to permit
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Summary Judgment in Alanco's favor, and Carolina then set forth the exact arguments noted above. Id. at 11-12. Indeed, this Court's May 18, 2004 Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court stated of Carolina's other defenses, including the "no Loss" argument and the fraud exclusion: "the Court does not find that the amended complaint in the State Court Suit constitutes a covered claim as a matter of law. As Defendant points out in its response, other policy provisions not addresses in the present motion may limit or preclude coverage. Resp. at 11. Such issues will be resolved though subsequent motions for summary judgment or at trial." As is evidenced by Alanco's own Exhibits to its present Second Amended Complaint, Alanco was fully aware of Carolina's present defenses contained in its Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Carolina does have a sustainable basis for: (i) entry of summary judgment on the "no Loss" argument; or (ii) to dismiss and/or stay these court proceedings until the underlying litigation is resolved and a determination can be made as to the potential application of the fraud exclusion.
Document 91 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 11 of 13

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

- 11 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

III.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Carolina's Motion to Dismiss and herein, Carolina

Casualty respectfully requests this Court to enter Summary Judgment in its favor and against Alanco. DATED this 16th day of February, 2006. SANDERS & PARKS, P.C.

By: s/ Mark G. Worischeck

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Mark G. Worischeck J. Steven Sparks 3030 N. Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3099 and James K. Thurston Patrick K. Cary Daniel E. Tranen WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 120 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Attorneys for Defendant Carolina Casualty Insurance Company

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 91

- 12 -

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 12 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

I hereby certify that on February 16, 2006, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following EM/ECF Registrants: mdaggett @stinsonmoheck.com cbeams @stinsonmoheck.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs To be hand-delivered as a courtesy hard copy on February 16, 2006, to The Honorable David G. Campbell s/ Mark G. Worischeck

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 91

- 13 -

Filed 02/16/2006

Page 13 of 13