Free Reply - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Stephen Paul Forrest (SBN 006341) HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST 2 KELLY & KASPAREK, P.C. 3 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 4 Telephone: (602) 240-6670 5 Facsimile: (602) 240-6677 6 Dennis E. O'Connell BRYAN CAVE LLP 7 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 8 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 9 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

Margaret B. LaBianca (No. 019169) 11 BRYAN CAVE LLP (No. 00145700) Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 12 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 13 Telephone: (602) 364-7000 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Lorraine Lopez-Moreno, Trina Carrasco, 16 and Jacqueline Cornwell 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
531689/0181280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Northland Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Correctional Medical Services, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV-04-347-PHX-FJM DEFENDANTS' CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., LORRAINE LOPEZ-MORENO, TRINA CARRASCO AND JACQUELINE CORNWELL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 131

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 1 of 12

1

Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), Lorraine Lopez-Moreno,

2 Trina Carrasco and Jacqueline Cornwell (collectively "Defendants") file this reply in support 3 of their motion for summary judgment.1 4 I. 5 Summary Plaintiff Northland Insurance Company's ("Northland") opposition to Defendants'

6 motion for summary judgment is a transparent attempt to paint itself as a victim of the 7 Valdez claim rather than insurer of the loss that occurred. From that posture, Northland 8 argues, without supporting case law, for an artificial construction of the plain language of the 9 Arizona Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund Act, A.R.S. § 23-661 et seq. 10 ("Arizona Guaranty Act") that otherwise bars its claims. In addition, Northland wholly fails
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 to address the undisputed facts that establish that it is not subrogated to Correctional 12 Services Corporation ("CSC"), but rather to the State of Arizona ("State"). Further there 13 has not been an effective assignment of CSC's rights to Northland. The belated assignment 14 dated December 5, 2005, must be ignored because it was created and executed after the close 15 of discovery in this case, long after the claims being litigated were asserted, and in any event 16 does not provide any basis for Northland to recover the money paid to settle the Valdez suit.2 17 II. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2

Analysis A. Northland's extensive recitation of alleged negligence on the part of nurses employed by CMS is not material to the issues in the subject motion.

Northland spends a significant portion of its opposition reciting underlying allegations and purported undisputed "facts" that have no bearing on the issues raised by Defendants'
1

Plaintiff denominates its memorandum filed December 5, 2005, as a "Response to Defendants' Motion" and a "Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment." Since the memorandum was filed far beyond the Court's October 24, 2005, deadline for filing dispositive motions and without leave of the Court, Defendants have treated it as an opposition to Defendants' motion only and have filed herewith a motion to strike Northland's untimely cross motion for partial summary judgment. In its statement of disputed facts in opposition and undisputed facts in support ("Northland SOF"), Northland outright admits all but eight of Defendants' Statement of Facts ("Defs. SOF") entitling defendants to summary judgment (Defs. SOF ¶¶ 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, 21-, 23, 25-31, 33-45; Northland SOF). As for the eight remaining facts (Defs. SOF ¶¶ 1, 7, 11, 17, 20, 22, 24, 32), Northland either does not dispute the fact or merely disagrees with the legal conclusion of the fact (Northland SOF ¶¶ 1-8).
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

2

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 2 of 12

1 summary judgment motion. Whether and to what extent the nurses employed by CMS at 2 Florence West state prison ("Florence West") were negligent has no legal significance with 3 respect to Northland's right to pursue a subrogation claim in the face of the bar against 4 subrogation claims contained in the Arizona and Missouri Guaranty Acts. Nor does it alter 5 the fact that Northland has paid nothing on behalf of its named insured, CSC, with whom 6 CMS contracted to provide medical services at Florence West. 7 CMS will not burden the Court with a point-for-point response to these irrelevant

8 asserted "facts," as set out in "The Relevant Facts" section of the Northland memorandum.3 9 However, it should be noted that the only legal significance this recitation could have is if it 10 would trigger some exclusion in the Northland policy. Obviously, they did not because
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 Northland satisfied a judgment that Northland asserts was rendered, at least in part, based on 12 the actions of CMS' nurses. 13 Regardless of how Northland characterizes the nurses' conduct and the medical care

14 provided to Mr. Valdez, Northland agreed to insure the State for liability arising out of the 15 operation of Florence West and it is that risk of loss that Northland ultimately resolved in 16 satisfying the Valdez judgment.4 Northland could have excluded coverage under its policy 17 for any medical professional services rendered at Florence West, but it did not. 18 Consequently, while it may complain of the nurses' alleged conduct, it agreed to insure 19 against liability arising out of such conduct and there is nothing unfair about requiring it to 20 honor its insurance obligation to the State. 21 Relevant to this motion, there were three parties involved in the operation of Florence

22 West--the State, CSC, and CMS. Two of those entities procured insurance that insured the 23 potential liability for negligence in the provision of medical services at that facility. CSC 24 25 26 27 28
3

Defendants, out of an abundance of caution, however, have filed herewith a response to Northland's Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Defs. Resp. to Northland SOF"). The Northland policy contains both Commercial General Liability and Professional Liability Coverage and by Endorsement 24 (NNAS 05225) this coverage is extended to the State of Arizona. (Northland SOF, Exh. 7). The Settlement Agreement and Release (NNAS 05211-05214) expressly states that payments by Northland are in satisfaction of the judgment rendered against the State. (Northland SOF, Exh. 47).
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

4

3

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 3 of 12

1 obtained insurance through Northland and named as an additional insured the State. CMS 2 obtained insurance for these liabilities with the PHICO Insurance Company ("PHICO"), and 3 provided additional insurance coverage to CSC for those liabilities.5 Unfortunately, both 4 CMS and CSC lost the benefit of the PHICO insurance when it was placed in rehabilitation 5 and ultimately in liquidation by the State of Pennsylvania. (Defs. SOF ¶¶ 44, 45). That left 6 the Northland policy as the only insurance available underwriting those risks and that 7 insurance covered the State, which ultimately was found liable for the Valdez injury. 8 Northland, through its litigation in state court, has obtained a ruling that provides it is

9 only responsible for the State's liability to the extent that such liability is predicated on the 10 operation of Florence West (Northland SOF ¶ 61; Defs. Resp. to Northland SOF ¶ 61).
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 Consequently, Northland's coverage of the State and in turn Northland's obligation for the 12 judgment entered against the State is co-extensive with the coverage it provided to CSC with 13 respect to such liability. However, that does not mean that Northland is subrogated to CSC. 14 CSC was dismissed with prejudice from the Valdez suit prior to trial; it has incurred no 15 liability for the Valdez claim. Further, because the State's liability arising out of any 16 negligent medical care at Florence West was covered by Northland and has been satisfied by 17 Northland, there is no reason for the State to seek to recover this loss from CSC. Northland 18 has paid nothing on the Valdez claim on behalf of CSC, and there is no reason for Northland 19 ever to pay anything on the Valdez claim on behalf of CSC. 20 In this action, Northland seeks to obtain reimbursement from CMS for a loss

21 Northland contractually agreed to cover. While under some circumstances an insurer in 22 Northland's position may pursue a subrogation claim after it has satisfied a loss, where that 23 claim is being brought against the insureds of an insolvent insurer, the state Guaranty Acts-- 24 which are designed to protect such an insured--have prohibited shifting the loss from a 25 26 27 28
5

PHICO initially failed to acknowledge that CSC was an additional insured but ultimately agreed its coverage extended to CSC and issued an endorsement effective as of the inception date of the policy (Defs. SOF ¶ 32, Exh. K; Letter of July 27, 2001, from R.P. Ericson attached hereto as Exhibit 1; PHICO Endorsement effective October 1, 1997, attached hereto as Exhibit 2).
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

4

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 4 of 12

1 solvent insurance carrier, with the ability to spread that risk, to the insureds of an insolvent 2 carrier, who are themselves victims of the financial failure of another insurance company. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

B.

Both the Arizona Guaranty Act and the Missouri Guaranty Act bar Northland's claims against Defendants.

In general, Arizona law likely applies to this case because the insured risk occurred in Arizona. The analysis changes, however, if the Court agrees with Northland's position ­ unsubstantiated by law, legislative history or policy ­ that the Arizona Guaranty Act provides less protection to the insureds of insolvent insurers than is provided by the Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act, R.S.Mo. §§ 375.771 et seq. ("Missouri Guaranty Act"). The analysis changes because such a finding would create a conflict between the law of Arizona and the law of Missouri on that issue. Missouri has a significant interest in assuring that CMS, which is domiciled in Missouri, receives the most protection available from the losses caused by an insolvent insurer. See Bates v. Superior Court, 749 P.2d 1367, 1370-72 (Ariz. 1988) (discussing how the applicable substantive law is that of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the resolution of the matter). Arizona, on the other hand, is not home to Northland, which is domiciled in Minnesota. In fact, Arizona's primary ties to this matter ­ the Valdez suit and the liability of the State ­ are unaffected by the statutory bar against subrogation claims.6 1. Northland asks the Court to impose an artificial construction on the plain language of the Arizona statute that bars Northland's claim as a matter of law.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

The language of the Arizona Guaranty Act could not be more plain. Section 20-673

22 provides as follows: "A member insurer or other insurer, which pays such insurer's own 23 policy, shall have no right of subrogation or recovery against the insured of an insolvent 24 25 26 27 28
6

Northland recognized the significance of Missouri's relationship to this matter by filing a claim with the Missouri Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA) on behalf of its insured, CSC, for the attorneys' fees and costs expended in the Valdez action (Defs. SOF ¶ 18). MIGA denied Northland's claim on the basis that any claim by an insurer is not a "covered claim" as necessary for reimbursement from MIGA (Defs. SOF ¶ 19).
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

5

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 5 of 12

1 insurer." A.R.S. § 20-673(A).7 The facts are undisputed that Northland is an insurer that 2 has paid on its own policy, and that Defendants are the insureds of an insolvent insurer. 3 (Defs. SOF ¶¶ 25, 28-30; 44-45; Northland SOF ¶ 62; Defs. Resp. to Northland SOF ¶ 62). 4 Thus, as a matter of law, the Act squarely eliminates Northland's claims against Defendants. 5 Northland asks the Court to restrict this plain language but does not provide any

6 authority to support its artificial construction. According to Northland, even though it is an 7 "insurer" which has paid a claim under its "own policy", it should recoup directly from 8 Defendants the payment it made for the loss it insured. Not only is Northland's position 9 contrary to the plain language of A.R.S. § 20-673 and unsupported by law, it contradicts the 10 legislative intent behind the Arizona Guaranty Act. The legislative record shows that a
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 primary purpose of the Act is to "avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because 12 of the insolvency of an insurer." Arizona Laws 1970, ch. 78 § 1. Northland's position 13 would shift the burden of insurer insolvency from a solvent insurer that insured that risk to 14 the insureds of an insolvent carrier ­ precisely the harm the Arizona Guaranty Act was 15 meant to, and by its plain language does, prevent. 16 Moreover, other states with similar Guaranty Acts also expressly provide this

17 protection. See, e.g., Cal. Code § 1063.1 ("an insurer . . . may not maintain . . . any claim or 18 legal action against the insured of the insolvent insurer . . . by way of subrogation"); Conn. 19 Gen. Stat. § 38a-838 ("any claim by or for the benefit of any . . . insurer . . . as subrogation 20 recoveries . . . may be filed directly with the receiver of the insolvent insurer but in no event 21 shall any such claim be asserted against the insured of such insolvent insurer"); Fla. Stat. § 22 631.54 ("member insurers shall have no right of subrogation . . . against the insured of an 23 insolvent member"); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §1379 ("the insured of an insolvent insurer shall 24 likewise not be liable for any subrogation claim asserted by any . . . insurer"); Miss. Code 25 26 27 28
7

As the statute clearly states, it not only prohibits a solvent insurer that has paid a loss under its policy from pursuing that loss by way of subrogation, it also bars it from any other form of "recovery" from the insured of an insolvent carrier. Consequently, should the court somehow find that CSC did assign a contract or fraud claim, the only damages recoverable under such an assignment would be damages other than the Valdez judgment which was paid by Northland under its insurance policy.
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

6

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 6 of 12

1 Ann. § 83-23-109 (precludes subrogation recovery . . . "from the insured of any insolvent 2 carrier"); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:30 A-5 ("any amount due any . . . insurer . . . as subrogation 3 recoveries . . . may be filed directly with the receiver of the insolvent insurer, but in no event 4 may any such claim be asserted in any legal action against the insured of such insolvent 5 insurer"); Or. Rev. Stat. § 734.695 ("the insured of an insolvent insurer may not be 6 personally liable for amounts due any . . . insurer . . . as subrogation recoveries"); R.I. Gen. 7 Laws § 27-34-5 ("a claim for any amount, asserted against a person insured under a policy 8 issued by . . . an insolvent insurer . . . may be filed directly with the receiver of the insolvent 9 insurer, but in no event may any claim be asserted against the insured of the insurer"); Tex. 10 Rev. Civ. Stat. § 21.28-C ("the insured of an impaired insurer is not liable, and the . . .insurer
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 . . . is not entitled to sue . . . for any subrogation recovery"); Utah Code Ann. § 31A-27-330 12 (insurer may not exercise right of subrogation against an insolvent insurer's insured). 13 In addition, although Arizona case law does not address Northland's position, courts

14 in other jurisdictions have consistently rejected the construction Northland seeks here. See, 15 e.g., Garrett v. Overland Garage & Parts, Inc., 882 S.W.2d 188, 192-93 (Mo. Ct. App. 16 1994) (rejecting insurer's claim for recovery of subrogation amount from the insured of 17 insolvent insurer); accord Tillman v. Cam's Trucking, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 18 2000); Window Coverings, Inc. v. Campbell, 755 P.2d 719, 720 (Or. Ct. App. 1988) 19 (affirming that insureds of insolvent insurers relieved from liability for subrogation 20 recoveries); Cordani v. Roulis, 395 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981) (holding statutory 21 language that provides that "a member insurer has no right of subrogation against any 22 insured who carries coverage with an insolvent member" poses an "absolute bar on 23 subrogation"); Sandson's Bakery v. Glover, 392 A.2d 640 (N.J. Super. 1978) (holding 24 Guaranty Act prohibits insurer from right of subrogation against the insured of insolvent 25 insurer has become insolvent). 26 The statutes from other states cited by Northland (Northland Resp. p. 12, n. 3) that

27 limit the bar of subrogation claims protection to the policy limits of the insolvent insurance 28 do not, as Northland's response seems to imply, support limiting that protection to the
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

7

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 7 of 12

1 amount paid out pursuant to the State's Guaranty Act. As the plain language of those 2 statutes indicates, the protections given an insured against recovery by an insurer is in some 3 cases limited to the policy limits of the policy the insured had with the insolvent insurer. In 4 other words, the solvent insurer could pursue the insured for amounts in excess of the 5 ineffective policy or policies. However, this is irrelevant here as Defendants were insured 6 by PHICO for $11 million (Defs. SOF ¶¶ 26, 27) and Northland's subrogation claim is $5.7 7 million. 8 In addition, Northland's assertion that the protections provided by the plain language

9 of the Arizona Guaranty Act encourage insureds to underinsure, with financially unsound 10 insurers on the bet that they will become insolvent, defies reason.
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

Simply providing

11 protection from subrogation claims is no incentive to an insured to insure with marginal 12 carriers when the liquidation of the insured's carrier leaves it exposed to all other claims and 13 the only direct monetary protection the Guaranty Act can provide is limited to $100,000 14 (Arizona) or $300,000 (Missouri). Further, these are not the facts here. CMS was fully 15 insured by PHICO, which, at the time CMS procured the PHICO coverage, carried an AM 16 Best rating of A-. (M. Mahoney Testimony, attached hereto Exhibit 3). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 2. The Arizona Guaranty Act bars Northland's subrogated claims as a matter of law because the Act requires the solvent insurer to pay the loss.

The bar against insurers like Northland from pursuing subrogation claims against the insured of an insolvent insurer like CMS is also consistent with the express requirement that when a claimant such as the State has more than one applicable policy, "a policy issued by the insolvent insurer shall be deemed excess coverage. The claimant shall be required to exhaust all rights under the other applicable coverage or coverages." A.R.S. § 20-673(C). In this case, undisputedly, such "other" applicable coverage was provided by Northland, and that coverage fully satisfied the judgment in the Valdez suit, to the extent it is based on the operations at Florence West. Thus, PHICO's coverage is deemed excess to Northland's and since Northland's policy covered the loss, the claim against the PHICO

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 131

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 8 of 12

1 policy is zero.

Consistent with this approach, the statute provides that Northland's

2 subrogated claim against PHICO's insureds, CMS and the defendant nurses, is zero too. 3 4 5 3. As a matter of law, the Missouri Guaranty Act bars the same claims barred by Arizona Guaranty Act.

Like the Arizona Guaranty Act, the Missouri Guaranty Act expressly protects insureds

6 of insolvent insurers from claims by other insurers. The Missouri Guaranty Act states: "To 7 the extent of any amount due any insurer . . . as subrogation recoveries or otherwise there 8 shall be no right of recovery by any person against a tortfeasor insured of an insolvent 9 insurer, except that such limitation shall not apply with respect to those amounts that exceed 10 the limits of the policy issued such tortfeasor by the insolvent insurer." § 375.772 RSMo.
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11

Missouri case law has, in fact, addressed Northland's artificial construction of the

12 subrogation bar and has squarely rejected it. Garrett v. Overland Garage & Parts, Inc., 882 13 S.W.2d 188, 192-93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that "the plain meaning of the statute is as 14 follows. First, when a tortfeasor's insurer is insolvent, any insurer who has paid a claim that 15 would ordinarily entitle it to subrogation will not be reimbursed by MIGA [Missouri 16 Insurance Guaranty Association] and second, no one may recover the subrogation amount 17 from the tortfeasor of the insolvent insurer."); accord Tillman v. Cam's Trucking, Inc., 20 18 S.W.3d 579, 587-88 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). 19 As discussed, if Northland's restrictive reading of Arizona law prevails, then 20 Missouri's interest in protecting the Missouri insured, CMS, dictates that Missouri law 21 applies as to this issue. 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 C. The undisputed facts demonstrate that Northland is not subrogated to any breach of contract claim from CSC and the purported assignment of that claim is ineffective. According to the undisputed facts, Northland's claims for 22 reimbursement should be dismissed as a matter of law and summary judgment entered for

It is axiomatic that to maintain a claim by subrogation, an insurer must pay a loss

27 suffered by its insured. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. Costain Arizona, Inc., 791 P.2d 1086, 28 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) ("It is well settled that where an insured contracts with a third 9

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 131

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 9 of 12

1 party requiring the latter to pay for loss or damage to insured property, the insurer, upon 2 payment of the loss, is subrogated to the rights of the insured under the contract."); see also 3 United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 618 P.2d 257, 259-60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 4 1980). Here, to the extent that Northland claims CMS breached its contract with CSC by 5 any of the enumerated defaults claimed in the Northland brief, Northland is not subrogated 6 to any such claim because it has not paid any liabilities under its policy based on any breach 7 of contract damages suffered by CSC. As demonstrated above, Northland satisfied a

8 judgment against the State which the State asserts was based in part on a claim of inadequate 9 medical care at Florence West. But in all events, the Valdez claim was a claim of

10 professional medical negligence, misconduct, errors and/or omissions. (Valdez complaint ¶¶
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 XIII, XIV and XV, attached hereto as Exhibit 4). Northland's response to Defendants' 12 summary judgment motion fails to provide any factual support for its claim to be subrogated 13 to the breach of contract claim of CSC because Northland has paid no judgment or any other 14 liability of CSC, whether arising in tort or contract. 15 Further, the Court should not credit nor consider the purported assignment between

16 CSC and Northland that purports to assign to Northland any right CSC would have to a 17 breach of contract claim. As reflected on the face of the assignment, it is effective as of 18 December 5, 2005, long after Northland's complaint was filed and, in fact, after discovery 19 with respect to these claims was closed. (Northland SOF, Exh. 1). However, even if this 20 assignment is deemed effective, it can only assign CSC's rights. Because CSC was

21 dismissed with prejudice from the Valdez suit and was not and could not be found liable for 22 the conduct complained of at Florence West, the purported assignment does not transfer any 23 rights of recovery with respect to that judgment from CSC to Northland. CSC did not incur 24 any liability; consequently, CSC has no liability to shift any other party and could not assign 25 such rights to Northland. 26 27 28 10

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 131

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 10 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

D.

Northland is not subrogated nor a recipient by assignment of any right of CSC to pursue a fraud claim against CMS.

Northland's opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the fraud cause of action is a perfunctory assertion that because the PHICO policy would not cover such a claim, the Guaranty Acts do not bar Northland's pursuit of that claim. Regardless of the interpretation of the cited exclusion of the PHICO policy (which CMS does not at all concede would be interpreted to bar the Northland allegations of fraud), once again, Northland has no subrogation right to a fraud claim nor has CSC's "assignment" transferred any such right. In order for Northland to be subrogated to any claim by CSC that it was defrauded by CMS in any fashion, Northland would have to have paid some liability on behalf of CSC that was incurred by CSC as a proximate result of such fraud. Because CSC incurred no liability for the Valdez injury, Northland has not paid anything on behalf of CSC for that injury. Further, should the Court credit the belated assignment of rights from CSC to Northland, CSC cannot transfer to Northland a right to pursue a fraud claim where it has incurred no damages or loss proximately caused by any representation by CMS in connection with the Valdez case. Conclusion The claims advanced by Northland in the present litigation are, in fact, subrogation

11 12 13 14 15

16 III. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claims that arise out of Northland's satisfaction of a judgment against its insured, the State. Because PHICO, the other insurance company that underwrote the risk of medical negligence at Florence West, has been placed in liquidation by the State of Pennsylvania, the Guaranty Acts adopted in both Arizona and Missouri bar Northland from attempting to transfer that subrogated liability to the insureds of the insolvent PHICO, CMS and the nurses it employed. Further, Northland is not subrogated to any CSC claims either for breach of contract or fraud. Even if the purported assignment running from CSC to Northland is credited, such assignment does not provide Northland with any basis for pursuing recovery of the Valdez judgment from the defendants. For the foregoing reasons, based upon the undisputed facts, all of Northland's claims fail as a matter of law and summary judgment should be entered for Defendants.
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

11

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 11 of 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

DATED December 22, 2005. HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST KELLY & KASPAREK, P.C. Stephen Paul Forrest (SBN 006341) 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 BRYAN CAVE LLP Dennis E. O'Connell 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 BRYAN CAVE LLP By s/ Margaret B. LaBianca Margaret B. LaBianca Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 Attorneys for Defendants

11 12 13 COPY of the foregoing hand-delivered 14 this 22nd day of December 2005 to 15 The Honorable Frederick J. Martone

16 The foregoing is transmitted electronically to the Clerk's Office this 22nd day of December 2005 17 for filing and for transmittal to the following counsel 18 of record: 19 Karl Michael Tilleman, Esq. 20 Janice Kay Crawford, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 21 Collier Center 201 East Washington, Street, Suite 1600 22 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 Keith R. Ricker, Esq. 25 RICKER & BUSTAMANTE, LLP 4530 East Shea Blvd., Suite 150 26 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Attorneys for Defendants 27 Dimaano and Figueroa 28 s/Tracy Strachan
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 131

12

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 12 of 12