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.

Gallahan v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

December 11, 2017

KIMBERLY GALLAHAN, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”)'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #14, Philadelphia's Motion to Supplement the Factual Record, Dkt. #20, and Plaintiff Kimberly Gallahan's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Dkt. #26. Philadelphia argues that Ms. Gallahan's suit is barred by the contractual limitations period of the insurance policy. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees, and GRANTS Philadelphia's Motions. Furthermore, the Court DENIES Ms. Gallahan's Motion to Amend given the procedural posture of this case.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 5, 2012, an auto accident occurred between Ms. Gallahan and the at-fault driver, Dennis Knox. See Dkts. #16-2; #16-4 at 3. The vehicle Ms. Gallahan was driving was owned by her employer and insured under Philadelphia's Commercial Lines, Policy No. PHPK766339. Dkt. #16-1.

         The Policy provides Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) Coverage in an endorsement. Id. at 16. This endorsement includes the following provisions:

a. No one may bring a legal action against us under this Coverage Form until there has been full compliance with all the terms of this Coverage Form.
b. any legal action against us under this Coverage Form must be brought within one year after the date on which the cause of action accrues.

Id. at 18.

         On July 23, 2012, plaintiff's then-counsel wrote Philadelphia and inquired about UIM coverage. Dkt. #16-2. Philadelphia responded three days later and provided Ms. Gallahan's attorney with the requested information. Dkt. #16-3.

         On May 27, 2014, Ms. Gallahan, through a new attorney, informed Philadelphia that she had settled her claim against Mr. Knox on July 8, 2013. Dkt. #16-4. On September 29, 2014, Ms. Gallahan demanded Philadelphia pay her the full UIM policy limits. Dkt #16-5. Philadelphia investigated Ms. Gallahan's claim, and on November 10, 2015, Philadelphia and Ms. Gallahan participated in an unsuccessful mediation. Dkt. #15 at ¶ 4.

         Fourteen months later, on January 3, 2017, Ms. Gallahan filed this suit against Philadelphia. Dkt. #1-1. Philadelphia removed to this Court on January 30, 2017. Dkt. #1.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to Supplement

         The Court will first address Philadelphia's Motion to Supplement the Factual Record. Dkt. #20. Philadelphia wishes to add to the record an email from Ms. Gallahan's counsel dated December 11, 2015, one month after the unsuccessful mediation, sent to Philadelphia and stating that she was “about to file with the courts.” Dkt. #21-1 at 2. Philadelphia argues that this evidence is relevant and directly contradicts Ms. Gallahan's claim that neither she nor her counsel were on notice that plaintiff's UIM claim had accrued after the mediation. Dkt. #20 at 2. Philadelphia argues that the Court has ...


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.