Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nautilus Insurance Company, An Arizona Corporation v. Ricciardi Development

November 9, 2012

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICCIARDI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, LOUIS M. RICCIARDI, INDIVIDUALLY, ATIT MANSURIA, INDIVIDUALLY, CAROLINA LANDEROS, INDIVIDUALLY, KATHLEEN T . HOGAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ROBERT VALENTE, INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Feinerman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The defendants in this insurance coverage case are on opposite sides of two tort suits pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Mansuria v. Hogan, No. 09 L 6287 (Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct.); Landeros v. Hogan, No. 09 L 6308 (Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct.). The two suits are materially identical and have been consolidated, and thus will be treated as one. The state court plaintiffs are Atit Mansuria and Carolina Landeros. After falling from the second story porch of a Chicago building in May 2009, Mansuria and Landeros sued Ricciardi Development, LLC ("Development"), Louis M. Ricciardi ("Ricciardi"), Kathleen T. Hogan, and Robert Valente for negligent construction or renovation. Hogan and Valente cross-claimed against Ricciardi and Development for contribution and indemnification. Ricciardi and Development demanded a defense and indemnification from Nautilus Insurance Company, Development's insurer.

Nautilus then filed this case, seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Ricciardi and Development in the state court suit. Doc. 1.

Nautilus invokes this court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which is proper because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Nautilus has moved for summary judgment. Doc. 40. The motion is granted.

Background

Consistent with the local rules, Nautilus filed a Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts along with its summary judgment motion. Doc. 42. Defendants filed no Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response, so the facts set forth in Nautilus's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement are deemed admitted. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C) ("All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party."); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 880-81, 884 (7th Cir. 2012); Parra v. Neal, 614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir. 2010); Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir. 2009); Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006); Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 943-44 (7th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003). The pertinent facts are as follows.

Count IV of the operative state court complaint, which states a negligence claim against

Ricciardi, alleges as follows:

a. Prior to May 24, 2009, [Ricciardi] owned, operated, managed, maintained, controlled, and renovated the building and attached outside wooden porch and guard rail system at 1005 S. Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

b. Prior to the sale of the aforesaid property, [Ricciardi] erected or renovated the attached wooden outside porch and guard rail system.

c. On May 24, 2009, [Mansuria/Landeros] was on the second floor back porch and was leaning against the porch railing system when the railing detached, causing [Mansuria/Landeros] to fall to the ground.

Doc. 42 at ¶¶ 3, 7. Count V of the state court complaint, which states a negligence claim against Development, alleges as follows:

a. Prior to May 24, 2009, [Development] owned, operated, managed, maintained, controlled, and renovated the building and attached outside wooden porch and guard rail system at 1005 S. Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

b. On May 24, 2009, [Mansuria/Landeros] was on the second floor back porch and was leaning against the porch railing system when the railing detached, causing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.