BENTON – Swansea Rural King sued Travelers insurance companies for coverage of a dog bite suit without possessing a contract to support its claim.
On Jan. 26, Rural King counsel James Leritz of St. Louis advised U.S. Magistrate Reona Daly that, “plaintiffs are attempting to locate such a contract.”
On Feb. 2, Travelers counsel Richard Valentino of Chicago replied that, “if such a contract exists they would have been a party to it and thus had a copy.
“Plaintiffs ask the court to allow them to take discovery so they can develop a good faith basis for a suit they already filed.”
The dog bite didn’t happen at Rural King.
It happened at the home of Katrice Mathis, according to a suit attorney Alvin Paulson of Belleville filed for her in St. Clair County circuit court in January 2020.
He claimed a pit bull belonging to neighbors Courtney Jackson and David Huddleston burst through a choke collar and attacked Mathis.
He claimed the attack resulted in surgery on her right arm, stitches, scars, pain, suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages.
Mathis sought damages from her neighbors, from Rural King where they bought the collar, and from collar maker Scott Pet of Rockville, Ind.
Leritz, defending the suit for Rural King, sued Travelers Property Casualty and Charter Oak Fire in St. Clair County circuit court for coverage last August.
He claimed Rural King qualified as an additional insured on Scott Pet’s policy.
He claimed the insurers issued coverage certificates to Mid-States Distributing, a retailer group that includes Rural King.
Rural King served the complaint on the insurers in October.
They removed it to district court in November, asserting diversity jurisdiction as Connecticut corporations.
Valentino moved to dismiss the complaint on Jan. 8, claiming Rural King didn’t qualify for coverage because it didn’t show a written contract with Scott Pet.
He wrote that Mid-State’s certificates informed members that they must consult the policies to determine whether coverage was available.
“Plaintiffs allege they are members of Mid-State Distributing but allege no contract with Scott Pet requiring that they be named additional insureds,” he wrote.
On Jan. 12, he moved to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
He wrote that Rural King would qualify for coverage if it showed a contract with Scott Pet that satisfied the requirements of a blanket endorsement.
“If they can’t produce such a contract, then they will not so qualify,” he wrote.
On Jan. 26, Leritz replied that he contacted Mid-State Distributing and a lawyer for Scott Pet to determine whether a contract exists.
He wrote that he tried to contact the agent who produced the certificates, and the person has been Scott Pet’s agent for only a short time.
He wrote that the agent had so far been unable to determine how Rural King got added to the certificates.
“The undersigned has also attempted to determine the identity of the current agent’s predecessor, so far without success,” he wrote.
He proposed to continue discovery consisting of a possible deposition of Scott Pet’s current agent or a deposition of the previous agent if necessary.
Valentino replied that Rural King should have undertaken an attempt to locate a contract before suing.
He wrote that a stay wouldn’t preclude Rural King from continuing informal discovery including searching their own records or consulting with Mid-State.
Magistrate Judge Daly has set trial in December.