Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lioness Holdings, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Co. Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

June 20, 2018

LIONESS HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut Insurance Company, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN JELDERKS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         As an initial mater, the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum (Dkt. #61) is DENIED. Prior to receiving the motion I had already read the Green-Hite deposition and the Supplemental Memorandum. Neither document changed my mind as to the rulings that I intended to make. In fact, Mr. Green-Hite's agreement that the IRS was another reason why the sale fell through bolstered my conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the claim that there was a pending sale and that Sentinel's conduct was the reason it was not completed.

         Plaintiff Lioness Holdings brings this action against Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment which came before the Court for oral argument on June 8, 2018. Trial is currently set for July 9, 2018. For the reasons set out below and on the record at oral argument, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

         I. Defendant's Motions:

1. There is no coverage for Plaintiffs loss for property entrusted to Ryan Reeves and/or anyone with a "master key" (Second Affirmative Defense).

         This motion is DENIED. As I indicated at oral argument, the Court finds that, for the purposes of this case, the losses in question were caused by Ryan Reeves. This was in effect agreed to by the parties. Although the Plaintiff now would like it to be a question of fact, the opinion stated many times by Mr. Lamka that Mr. Reeves was the perpetrator is well supported by the reasons he gave for his conclusion. Defendant Sentinel has agreed that Mr. Reeves was the perpetrator. When Mr. Reeves was given the opportunity to testify otherwise, he refused to testify pursuant to his rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the motion is denied because there is a question of fact as to whether the property in question was "entrusted" to him at the time of the incidents.

1A. In the alternative, there was only one "occurrence" as a matter of law and the Employee Dishonesty coverage limits Plaintiffs loss to $10, 000, which has been paid in full.
This motion is DENIED. As I indicated at oral argument, the Plaintiff is entitled to present evidence to the jury as to all ten events.
2. There is no coverage for Plaintiffs loss due to Plaintiffs failure to cooperate (Third Affirmative Defense).
This motion is DENIED. As I indicated at oral argument, this defense presents a fact question for the jury.
3. In the alternative, Defendant moves for partial summary judgment against Plaintiff s claims for "loss in revenue" and "loss in value" because they are excluded as consequential damages under the terms of the Policy (Fifth Affirmative Defense).
This motion is DENIED as moot based on the Court's ruling in the following alternative motion.
3 A. In the alternative, there is no colorable evidence in support of Plaintiff s claims for "loss in revenue" and "loss in value" and they should be dismissed.

         This motion is GRANTED. A careful review of Mr. Lamka's testimony as supplemented by the Green-Hite deposition leads to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has not presented coherent, consistent, objective, non-speculative evidence to support either of these large claims. Under Oregon law it is not necessary to prove the exact amount of lost profits, but the factfinder's decision cannot be based on conjecture, guesswork or speculation. Evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative" does not present a genuine issue of material fact and does not preclude the grant of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986)(citations omitted). Mr. Lamka stated that it was not possible to determine lost profits on each individual store. However, Sentinel's expert was apparently able to do so and determined that there was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.