Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Schwartz

Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Schwartz

Opinion

ORDER

This is an action for declaratory relief brought by an insurer, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford), against its former insured, James R. Schwartz, D.D.S., P.A. (Schwartz Dental), and the insured's president and sole owner, James R. Schwartz (J. Schwartz). Hartford seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Schwartz Dental against J. Schwartz's claim for workers' compensation benefits. The case is before the Court on Hartford's motion for summary judgment. ¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

 [*2] I. BACKGROUND

J. Schwartz is a dentist. He has been the president and sole owner of a dental practice, Schwartz Dental, since its inception in 1990. Hartford insured Schwartz Dental under workers' compensation policies from 2002 to 2006. Schwartz Dental did not elect to cover J. Schwartz under the policies. In November 2004, J. Schwartz allegedly experienced a Gillette injury. ² In August 2005, he filed a claim petition with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Workers' Compensation Division. Several months later, Hartford brought this action.

 [*3] II. DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion," and must identify "those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to respond by submitting evidentiary materials that designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must look at the record and any inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). [*4]  

The policy and the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.