Universal Image Prods. v. Chubb Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
March 29, 2010, Decided; March 29, 2010, Filed
Case No. 06-12805
In this case, the Plaintiff, Universal Image Productions, Inc. ("Universal"), seeks to obtain damages from the Defendant, Federal Insurance Company ("Federal") on the basis of the parties' insurance policy which covers claims for losses to Universal's commercial property under two theories; namely, breach of contract, and violations of the Uniform Trade Practices Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2001, et. seq.
On June 24, 2009 and July 30, 2009, Federal filed three motions for the entry of summary judgments relating to Universal's (1) claims which seek damages for its anticipated losses; (2) attempt to recover damages for business interruption, abandoned properties, fixtures, and areas not subject to its lease; and (3) effort to recover for concurrent causes of loss. Universal opposes Federal's motions.
In 1986, the Supreme Court opined that ] "[o]ne of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupportable claims or defenses . . . ." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a motion for a summary judgment should be granted if a party "show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Here, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of a material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
] In assessing a summary judgment motion, the Court [**3] must examine any pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits in a light that is most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); Boyd v. Ford Motor Co., 948 F.2d 283, 285 (6th Cir. 1991). It is the responsibility of the Court to determine "whether . . . there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.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.
703 F. Supp. 2d 705 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29532 **
UNIVERSAL IMAGE PRODUCTIONS, INC., a/k/a UNIVERSAL IMAGE, Plaintiff, v. THE CHUBB CORPORATION, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, CHUBB & SON, INC., New Jersey Corporations; and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Defendants.
Subsequent History: Affirmed by Universal Image Prods. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7187 (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich., 2012)
Prior History: Universal Image Prods., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4557 ( E.D. Mich., Jan. 23, 2008)
physical loss, premises, summary judgment, contamination, Pollutant, odor, air, first floor, damages, planned, Lease, space, personal property, Provisions, peril, duct, ventilation system, Inasmuch, occupied, losses, entitled to summary judgment, insurance company, concurrent cause, bacterial, bacteria, coverage, fixtures, floors, insure, opined
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Motions for Summary Judgment, General Overview, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Judgments, Evidentiary Considerations, Evidentiary Considerations, Absence of Essential Element, Scintilla Rule, Preliminary Considerations, Federal & State Interrelationships, Erie Doctrine, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, Ordinary & Usual Meanings, Plain Language, Property Insurance, Coverage, All Risks, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Property Damage, Business Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Concurrent Causes Doctrine