BENTON – Senior U.S. District Judge took charge of a claim that Atain Specialty Insurance doesn’t have to cover tree trimmer James Hodge of Godfrey, who backed a wood chipper over housemate Bailey Watson.
Gilbert denied Watson’s motion to remand the case to Madison County on Aug. 1, after granting Atain’s motion to align her interests with those of Hodge.
He found they had no actual or substantial controversy.
He also denied Watson’s motion to stay his proceedings pending resolution of a Madison County negligence suit against the agency that sold a policy to Hodge.
Watson’s counsel Lanny Darr of Alton had argued that a federal judge must abstain from cases with parallel proceedings in state court.
Atain counsel John Cavo of Chicago had argued that no claims in the agency suit addressed a declaration of coverage, and Gilbert agreed.
He found neither Hodge nor Atain was involved in the agency lawsuit.
He found they were the principal parties to the insurance contract at issue in the action before him.
“In short, the agency lawsuit will not dispose of the coverage issue,” Gilbert wrote.
Hodge’s chipper injured Watson in 2020, when he backed up a truck with the chipper attached.
Watson sued Hodge in Madison County in March 2021.
Atain denied coverage in April 2021, and sued in district court for declaratory judgment that its policy didn’t apply because it excluded autos.
Hodge didn’t contest the Madison County action and last August, Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth awarded about $7 million to Watson as default judgment.
Watson filed for garnishment against Atain, which removed the action to district court and moved for consolidation with its declaratory judgment action.
Gilbert granted consolidation and set bench trial to start this Oct. 17.
Watson moved to remand the garnishment action to Madison County.
This March, in Madison County, Watson sued Lewis and Clark Insurance Agency of Colorado and agent Angela Clontz.
Watson claimed they sold Hodge a faulty policy.
Then she moved to dismiss or stay Gilbert’s proceedings.
Atain opposed remand and moved to realign Watson and Hodge as parties with common interest.
Darr answered, “Hodge is not an actor in the garnishment and his status in the state court action cannot be realigned by this court.”
He called Madison County “a single forum where all interested parties are present.”
Gilbert stated in his current order that he wouldn’t send an action filed in April 2021 to state court where Watson created piecemeal litigation this March.
He found he was likely to resolve the coverage issue before disposition of the agency suit in Madison County.
He found Watson provided no support for contending that Hodge wasn’t an actor.
Gilbert faces further complication because defendants in the agency suit petitioned to intervene in district court on July 7.
Their counsel Paige Neel wrote that if Gilbert holds that the policy covered the injury, the ruling would directly impact the Madison County action.
“Allowing intervention will not necessitate any time consuming fact discovery or derail the case in any way,” Neel wrote.
On July 21, Cavo responded that their motion was untimely and an untimely intervention motion can stall an action that has progressed nearly to conclusion.
He claimed Watson and Hodge already represented any interests the agency defendants might have.
He claimed they were neither judgment creditors against Hodge nor were they parties to the insurance contract.
On July 28, Neel’s colleague Don Sampen replied that common sense dictated a decision in one proceeding with all parties present.
He denied that the agency defendants lacked a protectable interest, and denied that Watson represented them.
“Intervenors and Watson may have certain general interests in common, just as Atain and intervenors have certain general interests in common,” Sampen wrote.
Gilbert wrote that he would rule on intervention by separate order.