Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Hasan v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

August 2, 2018, Decided; August 2, 2018, Filed

Civil Action No. 16-cv-02963-RM-MLC

Opinion

ORDER

This litigation arises out of a coverage dispute between an insurance carrier and its insured. Defendant AIG Property Casualty Company's ("AIG" or "Defendant") motion for summary judgment seeks determination that no coverage exists for Plaintiffs Malik M. Hasan, M.D. and Seeme G. Hasan's (the "Hasans" or "Plaintiffs") claims under a "private collections" insurance policy for wine that was ordered, but not received from Fox Ortega Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Cru ("Premier Cru"). (ECF No. 26.) Premier Cru took Plaintiffs' (and many others') money for thousands of bottles of wine as part of a fraudulent wine Ponzi scheme.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) Plaintiffs do not possess or own the bottles of wine that are the subject of the insurance claim; [*2]  and (2) even if Plaintiffs could establish some ownership right, there has been no "direct physical loss or damage" to the bottles of wine as required for coverage under the policy. (ECF No. 26 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs counter that material issues of fact exist as to whether they received "title" to, and thus own, the wine. (ECF No. 32-1 at 2.) Regarding the second ground, Plaintiffs argue that paying for, but not receiving, the physical bottles of wine ordered from Premier Cru constitutes "direct physical loss or damage" as required for coverage under the policy. (Id. at 16-17.)

Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 47) and the Magistrate Judge's Amended Recommendation to Deny Motion for Leave to Amend (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 53). Plaintiffs objected to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 54.)

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections, and DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

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.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233406 *; 2018 WL 10335670

MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., and SEEME G. HASAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by Hasan v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co., 935 F.3d 1092, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25761 (10th Cir. Colo., Aug. 27, 2019)

Prior History: Hasan v. MG Prop. Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99265 (D. Colo., June 12, 2018)

CORE TERMS

wine, physical loss, coverage, insured, summary judgment, bottle of wine, amended complaint, cases, fraudulent scheme, pretrial order, renew a motion, Recommendation