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.

Mears Group, Inc. v. Kiawah Island Utility Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

October 22, 2019

MEARS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
KIAWAH ISLAND UTILITY, INC., Defendant. KIAWAH ISLAND UTILITY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION, SWISS RE INTERNATIONAL SE, LLOYD'S SYNDICATE 1882 CHB, and MEARS GROUP INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The following matter is before the court on Kiawah Island Utility's (“KIU) motion to stay, ECF No. 84, in Mears Group, Inc. v. Kiawah Island Utility, 17-2418 (“Mears action”), and KIU's motions to consolidate in both the Mears action, ECF No. 98, and Kiawah Island Utility v. Westport Insurance Corporation, 19-1359 (“KIU action”), ECF No. 42. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion to stay and denies the motions to consolidate.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of the construction of a pipeline running from Kiawah Island to Johns Island (“the Project”). KIU, the owner of the Project, entered into a contract (“the Contract”) with Mears Group, Inc. (“Mears”) to construct the pipeline. The Project consisted of using horizontal directional drilling to bore an underground hole and then pulling pipe through the hole. During this process, the pipe got stuck in the borehole, and Mears's work was lost. As a result, Mears had to drill a second borehole and install a new section of pipeline.

         Mears presented a claim for the lost work to KIU to be submitted to KIU's builder's risk insurance carrier. Mears contends that the Contract required KIU to obtain primary builder's risk insurance and name Mears as a loss payee. KIU disputes whether the Contract required KIU to provide builder's risk insurance for the Project, but regardless, KIU submitted Mears's claim under a property insurance policy held by KIU's parent, SouthWest Water Company. Westport Insurance Corporation (“Westport”) supplied that policy (“Westport Policy”). Westport denied coverage for the claim. KIU also demanded that Mears submit a claim to its own builder's risk insurance carrier, which KIU contends that Mears still has not done. Swiss Re International SE and Lloyd's Syndicate 1882 CB[1] (collectively, “the Insurers”) issued that policy to Mears (“the Swiss Re Policy”), which Mears allegedly presented to KIU prior to beginning work on the Project. Both Mears and the Insurers clarify that Mears has provided the Insurers with notice of a potential claim but has not formally submitted a claim for reimbursement under the Policy.

         Mears filed the Mears action on September 8, 2017 seeking a declaration that KIU was required by the Contract to procure primary builder's risk insurance and alleging that KIU breached the Contract by failing to do so. After a round of summary judgment briefing, the court denied KIU's cross-motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part Mears's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the court denied Mears's motion as to the breach of contract claim but granted the motion as to the declaratory judgment claim, holding that the Contract unambiguously required KIU to obtain primary builder's risk insurance.

         KIU filed a motion to reconsider and a motion for certificate of appealability, both of which the court denied on May 30, 2019. Then on June 6, 2019, KIU filed a motion to stay, ECF No. 84, to which Mears responded, ECF No. 92, and KIU replied, ECF No. 97. Mears then sought leave to file a sur-reply, which the court granted, so Mears filed a sur-reply. ECF No. 111. Additionally, on July 23, 2019, KIU filed a motion to consolidate the Mears action and KIU action. ECF No. 98. Mears responded, ECF No. 99, and KIU replied, ECF No. 105.

         In the meantime, on May 9, 2019, KIU filed the KIU action against Westport, the Insurers, and Mears. In that action, KIU action seeks declarations that: (1) the Westport Policy provides coverage to KIU for damage to the Project; (2) KIU is an Additional Insured under the Swiss Re Policy; (3) the Swiss Re Policy provides coverage to KIU for damage to the Project; (4) the Wrap Around coverage of the Swiss Re Policy provides coverage to KIU; (5) the Westport Policy must provide coverage to KIU up to the amount of available coverage; (6) the Swiss Re Policy must provide coverage to Kiawah for any amount not covered by the Westport Policy; (7) any provision in the Swiss Re Policy that requires KIU to bring a legal proceeding outside of South Carolina is void and unenforceable; and (8) KIU did not agree to arbitrate any disputes under the Swiss Re Policy and none of the disputes in this action are subject to arbitration.

         KIU filed the same motion to consolidate in the KIU action as it did in the Mears action on July 24, 2019. ECF No. 42. All defendants responded, ECF Nos. 53, 54, and 59, and KIU replied, ECF Nos. 62-64. The court held a hearing on the motions in both the Mears action and KIU action on September 12, 2019. These motions are now all ripe for review.

         II. STANDARD

         A. Motion to Stay

         “A court has the power to stay proceedings, which is ‘incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.'” Doe v. Bayer Corp., 367 F.Supp.2d 904, 914 (M.D. N.C. 2005) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In exercising its authority to grant a discretionary stay, the court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254, 255 (internal quotation omitted). Furthermore, “[t]he party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). “When considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: ‘(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.'” Impulse Monitoring, Inc. v. Aetna Health, Inc., 2014 WL 4748598, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting Johnson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2012 WL 4538642, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct.1, 2012)).

         B. Motion to Consolidate

         Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). “As the rule states, a motion to consolidate must meet the threshold requirement of involving ‘a common question of law or fact.' If that threshold requirement is met, then whether to grant the motion becomes an issue of judicial discretion.” Pariseau v. Anodyne Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., 2006 WL 325379, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Feb. 9, 2006) “District courts have broad discretion under F[ed]. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, courts consider “whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion were overborne” by (1) “the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues”; (2) “the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits”; (3) “the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one”; and (4) “the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.” Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir.1982)) (“the Arnold factors”).

         III. DISCUSSION

         This dispute arises from the parties' differing interpretations of the court's summary judgment order in the Mears action. As such, the court takes this opportunity to review the summary judgment arguments that were before it and to explain and to clarify what exactly it held in its order based on those arguments. The court then turns to its consideration of the motion to stay and motions to consolidate.

         A. Summary Judgment Briefing and Rulings in the Mears Action

         a. The Parties' Arguments

         The court begins with the parties' summary judgment arguments about the root of the issue here-Mears's breach of contract claim. Mears filed a motion for summary judgment seeking “summary judgment on its claim for a declaratory judgment that KIU had the obligation to provide primary ‘all-risk' Builder's Risk coverage and to name Mears as a loss payee, and summary judgment on its breach of contract claim on the grounds that KIU breached that obligation.” ECF No. 18 at 2. With regard to its breach of contract claim, in a section titled “KIU Breached Its Obligation by Failing to Provide Primary Builder's Risk Coverage and by Failing to Name Mears as a Loss Payee, ” Mears argued:

KIU's insurer, Westport, has determined that KIU's Builder's Risk policy is excess to Mears' policy. See Exhibit 2 to the Affidavit of Stephen L. Gude, attached as Exhibit A, Letter from Engle Martin. The Westport policy does not list Mears as a loss payee, only Southwest Water Company. See Westport Policy, Exhibit B, at pg. 10. Because KIU did not provide primary Builder's Risk insurance, and did not name Mears as a loss payee, partial summary judgment is proper as to KIU's breach of these contractual requirements.

         ECF No. 18 at 12-13. Mears did not mention any argument related to faulty workmanship in its motion.

         KIU did not respond by arguing that it did not breach the Contract, nor did it argue that, in the event the court found the Contract to require KIU to obtain primary builder's risk insurance, the Westport Policy fulfilled KIU's contractual obligation. Instead, KIU argued that Mears's breach of contract claim must fail because even if KIU breached the Contract, Mears was not damaged by the breach because Mears engaged in faulty workmanship, which is excluded from coverage. KIU contended that “Mears cannot prevail in this action - much less on its Motion - because builder's risk insurance does not cover the loss at issue in this case; therefore, even if KIU was obligated to provide builder's risk coverage, Mears has suffered no damages resulting from a failure to do so.” ECF No. 21 at 10. KIU explained that “[b]uilder's risk insurance policies typically contain exclusions for faulty workmanship” and “[s]imilarly, SWWC's Westport policy specifically excludes loss or damage resulting from ‘faulty workmanship, material, construction, or design.'” Id. KIU then explained that Westport's claims adjuster determined Mears engaged in faulty workmanship that was excluded from coverage, provided technical background on why Mears's work was faulty, and concluded that “[b]ecause Mears' own negligence caused the damage it suffered, and because faulty workmanship is excluded from insurance coverage, it is inconsequential whether KIU obtained primary builder's risk coverage on the Project.” Id. at 10-11.

         In reply, Mears contended that KIU's faulty workmanship argument was not relevant to Mears's motion because Mears sought “summary judgment only as to the questions of whether KIU was required by contract to purchase primary builders risk insurance which named Mears as loss payee, and whether KIU breached the contract by failing to do so.” ECF No. 26 at 12. Mears explained that it disagreed with KIU's reasoning as to why Mears engaged in faulty workmanship but emphasized that these were factual issues that were unrelated to Mears's motion. Id. The parties did not bring up faulty workmanship or substantive arguments on whether KIU breached the Contract in the briefing on KIU's cross motion for summary judgment.

         Notably, both parties consistently argued in the briefings and at the hearing on the motions that Westport denied coverage because (1) Westport's adjustor concluded that Mears, not KIU, had the obligation to provide builder's risk insurance, and therefore, the Westport Policy was excess; and (2) Westport determined that Mears engaged in faulty workmanship. In KIU's response to Mears's motion for summary judgment, KIU stated that “KIU's insurer [Westport] denied the claim, because, 1) per the contract between KIU and Mears, Mears was the party responsible for obtaining builder's risk insurance for the Project, and 2) the cause of the broken pipeline was Mears' faulty workmanship, which is excluded from coverage.” ECF No. 21 at 2. KIU incorporated the factual background from its response, which includes this statement, into its own cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 25 at 1 n.1.

         In addition, the hearing on the summary judgment motions, counsel for KIU argued that Westport “did issue a denial letter in part based on [Westport's] finding that this insurance was excess” and that Westport “concluded that Mears was the party that had the obligation to provide the insurance, and [Westport] denied the claim on that basis.” ECF No. 42, Tr. 30:9-14. Counsel then said that Westport “also denied the claim on the basis that [Mears's work] was faulty workmanship, . . . [s]o there were multiples grounds on which that claim was denied.” Id., Tr. 30:15-19. Moreover, Mears argued in its motion for summary judgment that Westport determined that the Westport Policy was excess to any policy maintained by Mears, and KIU never disputed that argument in its response. In other words, the consistent ...


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.