Hasbrouck v Nationwide, a case recently introduced on SLABBED as one of the sequence of events in no particular order, has reached settlement according to a note on the docket.
Magistrate Judge Anderson stuck a compromise issued an Order in O’Keefe v State Farm – agreeing with O’Keefe on the overly broad nature of State Farm motion for protective order but granting the motion with O’Keefe’s more restrictive version.
Order pursuant to hearing conducted on 6/30/09: denying Plaintiffs’ 89 Motion to Quash the subpoena duces tecum [#89] served on USF&G; granting Defendant State Farm’s 100 Motion for Protective Order only to the extent that the proposed Protective Order submitted by Plaintiffs shall be entered. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Excess Discovery [#111] taken under advisement; separate Order shall be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 7/2/09. (ACF) (Entered: 07/02/2009).
O’Keefe also filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant Marshall Eleuterius, the agent selling the O’Keefes’ State Farm policies that are in dispute in the litigation:
Defendant, Mr. Marshall J. Eleuterius is an agent for State Farm… At all times associated with this Complaint, Mr. Eleuterius was responsible for providing advice and assistance regarding applicable and necessary coverages, and renewing coverage, based on the particular needs of Mr. and Mrs. O’Keefe and Dancel. Mr. and Mrs. O’Keefe and/or Dancel relied on Mr. Eleuterius to provide competent, professional, and accurate advice regarding coverage and to procure appropriate and adequate insurance coverage for their particular needs.
Mr. Eleuterius was consulted regarding coverage on Mr. and Mrs. O’Keefe’s principal dwelling. Mr. Eleuterius instructed Mr. and Mrs. O’Keefe to purchase a State Farm Homeowners’ policy, but advised against purchasing a federal flood insurance policy, insisting that the O’Keefes’ dwelling was not located in a flood zone.
Mr. Eleuterius further indicated to Mrs. O’Keefe that, to the extent the O’Keefes elected to purchase Federal flood insurance, the State Farm homeowner’s policy would be supplemental to the Federal flood coverage, and the State Farm Homeowner’s policy would pick up where the Federal flood coverage ended, and provide coverage for any damage to the O’Keefes’ dwelling
above and beyond the limits of the federal flood coverage in the event of a catastrophic Hurricane loss involving both wind and storm surge.
Mr. Eleuterius further advised the Plaintiffs that it was not possible to obtain excess flood insurance, from any source, beyond the limits available through the federal government. Under his agency agreement with State Farm Fire, Mr. Eleuterius was prohibited from offering excess flood insurance to State Farm insureds through the private market. At the time Mr. Eleuterius advised the Plaintiffs no “excess” flood insurance was available, he knew or should have known that this representation was not true. Mr. Eleuterius expected the Plaintiffs to believe this false representation, and to rely on it, however, with the intended result that Plaintiffs would not seek quotes on excess flood insurance from other agents and insurance companies, which contacts may lead Plaintiffs to place all of their substantial insurance business with an agent other than Eleuterius, and with an insurance company other than State Farm. (emphasis added [in the Response])
Eleuterius seeks Summary Judgment on the following basis:
(1) He alleges Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and misrepresentation are time barred; and (2) He alleges Plaintiffs’ claim for misrepresentation fails, as a matter of law, for alleged lack of detrimental reliance on Eleuterius’ misrepresentations.
The O’Keefes contend the claims are not time barred, contest the claim there is a lack of detrimental reliance, and allege Eleuterius failed to address all of their claims.
Eleuterius also lost his home to Katrina and his suit against Nationwide settled – bt not without raising some interesting questions for discussion another day.