Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enters. LLC
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
July 16, 2014, Decided; July 16, 2014, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-00186-JHM-HBB
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Alter [DN 29] of the Plaintiff, Cincinnati Insurance Company ("Cincinnati"), in which Cincinnati asks the Court to alter its Memorandum Opinion and Order [DN 28] that was entered on March 4, 2014. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. For the following reasons, Cincinnati's motion [DN 29] is GRANTED.
The Defendant, Richie Enterprises, LLC ("Richie"), is a pharmaceutical drug distributor incorporated in Kentucky. On June 26, 2012, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, sued Richie and other pharmaceutical drug distribution companies, alleging that they illegally distributed controlled substances by supplying [*2] physicians and drugstores with drug quantities in excess of legitimate medical need. (See Compl. [DN 20-2] ¶¶ 2-3.) According to the Attorney General, Richie and the other drug distribution companies became an integral part of the "pill mills" in West Virginia. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Attorney General thus alleges that they are liable for the harms caused to the State of West Virginia. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Once it was named as a defendant in the West Virginia lawsuit, Richie sought insurance defense from Cincinnati under its commercial general liability policy ("CGL policy"). Cincinnati, however, refused to provide Richie with a defense after concluding that the Attorney General's claims against Richie did not fall within the CGL policy's limits. Cincinnati then filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking the Court's declaration that it had no duty to either defend or indemnify Richie with respect to the West Virginia action.
On March 4, 2014, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order [DN 28]. In it, the Court denied Cincinnati's motion for a declaratory judgment and concluded that the claims asserted against Richie in the underlying action potentially came within the coverage provided by the [*3] CGL policy, triggering Cincinnati's duty to defend. In specific, the Court found that the underlying lawsuit contained allegations of an "occurrence," as defined by the CGL policy. (See Mem. Op & Order [DN 28] 6-12.) The Court also found that the Attorney General was seeking damages for "bodily injury." (Id. at 12-14.) As to its finding of "bodily injury," the Court stated:Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96510 *
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF v. RICHIE ENTERPRISES LLC, DEFENDANT
Prior History: Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Richie Enters. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27306 (W.D. Ky., Mar. 4, 2014)
bodily injury, damages, allegations, seek damages, medical monitoring, Memorandum, prescription drug, argues, manufacturer, products, courts, costs
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Entry of Judgments, Multiple Claims & Parties, Common Law, General Overview