Free Reply in Support of Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 127.8 kB
Pages: 4
Date: September 8, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 942 Words, 5,881 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43561/136-7.pdf

Download Reply in Support of Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 127.8 kB)


Preview Reply in Support of Motion - District Court of Arizona
E i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
U—Haul International, Inc.; U—Haul )
Company of Pennsylvania; U—Haul Company )
Of Florida; and Republic Western )
Insurance Company, )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )Case No:
)CIV—04—0662—PHX—DGC
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, )
Defendants. )
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, )
)
Defendant/Counter—Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE CO.; U—HAUL )
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; U-HAUL COMPANY OF )
S PENNSYLVANIA; U—HAUL COMPANY OF FLORIDA;)
AMERCO; AMERCO REAL ESTATE CO. D/B/A ) .
NOVI MANUFACTURING CO. AND WARRINGTON )
MANUFACTURING CO.; AMERCO REAL ESTATE )
_ E, SERVICES, INC.; AMERCO REAL ESTATE )
Qni? COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC.; U—HAUL BUSINESS )
'¥ Q CONSULTANTS, INC.; U—HAUL COMPANY OF )
`I ARIZONA; U—HAUL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA )
D/B/A PARAMOUNT MANUFACTURING CO.; )
U~HAUL CO. OF INDIANA, INC. D/B/A )
CHICAGO ASSEMBLY DIVISION; U—HAUL CO. OF)
MASSACHUSETTS, INC. D/B/A BOSTON TRAILER)
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; U—HAUL CO. )
OF MICHIGAN; AND U—HAUL CO. OF TEXAS )
D/B/A DFW MFG. CO., INC.; )
)
Counter—Defendants. )
DEPOSITION OF MAE LOUISE SANDOVAL
January ll, 2005 @§§;
Phoenix, Arizona 5 lVF.T,_ri W Eff A _n___:_ _
Prepared by: _J._ V, Iv. °`` _,,. N A ._
» RABIN' CASTRC, RRR, CCR .*I;l;l‘
CCR #50653 `fii ...` . S*S’®‘CIATES
...) . Prepared fer;
y§ngY MR. WAYNE T. GILL ‘ gpg?
(COPY) r.L;;;._;,¤ fllogtg Central Avenue
* Phoemx, Arnzona 85012
lr / T §§§:§2é;S§38
§ :5 F6022642245
Case 2:O4—cv—OO662—DGC Docu en d • /08/2006 Page-R1***d5#f€4¤¤€*$-com

45
I BY MR. GILL:
2 Q. On Exhibit 29, which is captioned up above the
3 "Acord Umbrella Section," do you see the section that says —
4 "Underlying insurance"?
5 A. Mm—hmm.
6 Q. Right?
7 A._ Right. ‘
8 Q. Okay. And then you see the section below that
9 that says "Underlying general liability information"?
lO A. Mm—hmm. y
II Q. Okay. Where that section refers to underlying
l2 insurance, is it referring to the underlying insurance as
I3 described in the section just on top of that?
I4 A. It —— it is referring to that.
l5 Q. Okay.
I6 A. It would be —— normally if those were claims made.
l7 These questions are all applicable to a claims—made policy.
l8 Q. Which questions?
I9 A. The questions you just asked me about. These
2O (indicating). They're talking about retro dates.
_ 2l They're —— they're —— they're asking if the above V
22 information is under claims made. U
23 Q. Was it claims made?
24 A. No, it was not.
V 25 Q. You're talking about the retroactive date
_ GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES
Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC D0cument_136-7 Filed O9/O8/2006 Page 2 of 4

46
1 question? .
2 A. Right. That section.
3 Q. Okay. But on the line where you —— where it says
4 "Are defense costs" and you put an X by the word`
5 "unlimited," was that referring to the underlying automobile
6 insurance coverages listed above?
7 A. I'm trying to remember on this —— this one. It ——
8 usually this is where we indicated where we want the defense
V 9 costs on our policies.
10 Q. I'm sorry? Where you ——
l1 A. Where the defense costs should be on the policy we
12 are requesting. _
13 Q. You mean outside limits?
14 A. ·Outside the limits. _
15 Q. And what policy was that that you were requesting?
16 A. This would be the request for the excess liability
17 policies we were requesting from the carriers.
A 18 Q. Okay. And which carrier was that for this
19 -April 1, 1999, year? U
'2O A. That application would have been prepared and sent
21 to numerous carriers. ‘
22 Q. Okay. Which carrier wrote the excess coverage?
23 A. \It was —— I can't tell you right offhand. We had
24 a number of companies involved in it.
ig 25 Q. Okay.i But you say you're not —— you did not write
GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES
Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 136-7 Filed O9/O8/2006 Page 3 of 4

96
l MS. SHOFFNER: I'm going to object to the question
2 just because the exhibit is at least a hundred pages, and to
3 ask her to go through all of this exhibit for the purpose of
4 answering that question is ——
5 THE WITNESS: There's another set here.
6 MR. GILL: Well, that's the way they came in the
7 box from Aon.
8 MS. SHOEENER: It doesn't matter how they came in
9 the box from Aon. The question that you‘re asking her is
lO based on her having to read over a hundred pages of
ll documents, and she‘s not going to sit here and go through
l2 all of this stuff, much of it included —— is composed of
j. l3 various documents. Look at this. Here.
l4 If you have a question to ask her, ask your
l5 question.
l6 BY MR. GILL:
l7 Q. Okay. As to Exhibit 6l, why was Republic Western
l8 policy RU99, if you know, the only policy contained in
l9 Exhibit 6l? I
2O A. The RU99 was the umbrella policy, and all of the
2l excess liability is keyed off of the umbrella policy.
22 That's all we normally sent.
23 Q. Thank you.
U 24 MS. SHOEENER: 62?
25 MR. GILL: 62.
GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES
Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 136-7 Filed O9/O8/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 136-7

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 136-7

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 136-7

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 136-7

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 4 of 4