Summary
explaining that, even if plaintiff were a co-insured of fraudster policyholder, plaintiff would not be entitled to coverage because, applying Watts , the language of the policy's fraud provision voided its coverage based on the acts of "any insured," not merely "the insured"
Summary of this case from Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. DallalOpinion
Case No. CV 12-05067-DMG (DTBx)
07-08-2013
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Court's July 8, 2013 Order granting Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company and against Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company, which shall take nothing.
______________________
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE