United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff IDS Property
Casualty Insurance Company's (“IDS”) motion
for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 29) and request for
judicial notice (Dkt. No. 31). Having thoroughly considered
the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court
finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part both motions for the reasons explained herein.
action for declaratory relief seeks a determination of rights
and obligations under three homeowner's insurance
policies purchased by Defendants Dimitri and Anna Ivanov (the
“Ivanovs”) from IDS. (See Dkt. No.
The first homeowner's insurance policy covers the
Ivanovs' reported home address in Mukilteo, Washington,
and has a personal liability limit of $300, 000 for each
occurrence or offense. (Id. at 3.) The second
homeowner's insurance policy covers a condominium in
Everett, Washington, and has a personal liability limit of
$100, 000 for each occurrence or offense. (Id. at
3-4.) The third homeowner's insurance policy covers a
condominium in Lynnwood, Washington, and has a personal
liability limit of $300, 000 for each occurrence or offense.
(Id. at 4.)
policies contain identical language in the personal liability
protection sections. (See Dkt. Nos. 30-1-30-3.) The
policies obligate IDS to pay for “any one occurrence
which any insured person becomes legally obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily injury or property damage covered
by this policy.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 5) (boldface omitted).
The definition of “Insured person” includes the
policyholder (in this case, the Ivanovs) and the Ivanovs'
“relatives residing in [their] household.”
(Id.) “Bodily injury” is defined as
“bodily harm . . . [and] includes required care, loss
of services and death resulting from covered bodily harm . .
. .” (Id.) “Occurrence” is defined
as “an accident which is unexpected or unintended from
[the policyholder's] standpoint resulting in bodily
injury . . . It also includes repeated or continuous exposure
to substantially the same general harmful conditions.”
(Id.) (boldface omitted). The policies exclude
“[b]odily injury . . . expected or intended by one or
more insured persons . . . .” (Id.) (boldface
omitted). The policies applied “separately to each
insured person against whom claim is made or suit is brought,
subject to [IDS's] limits of liability for each
occurrence.” (Dkt. No. 29 at 10.)
the policies list the Mukilteo residence as the Ivanovs'
primary address. (See Dkt. Nos. 30-1 at 3, 30-2 at
3, 30-3 at 3.) In 2016, Anna Ivanov and her son Allen Ivanov
were primarily living at the Ivanovs' Mukilteo residence.
(Dkt. No. 15 at 4.) Anna Ivanov stayed at the Mukilteo
residence to take care of her elderly parents, and
occasionally stayed at the Lynnwood residence. (Dkt. No. 24
at 12-13.) Dimitri Ivanov was living at the Everett
residence. (Id. at 13.)
2016, Allen Ivanov fatally shot three people and wounded a
fourth at a party in Mukilteo, Washington with an AR-15
semi-automatic rifle. (Dkt. No. 15 at 6-7.) Allen Ivanov
ultimately pled guilty to first-degree murder and stated that
the deaths were premeditated and part of a common plan.
(Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 24 at 5.) The estates of two of
the deceased-Jacob Long and Anna Bui (collectively,
“the estates”)-sued the Ivanovs in Washington
state court, alleging that the Ivanovs were negligent in
failing to prevent the shooting. (See Dkt. Nos. 1 at
12-19; 16-1 at 6-12; 36-1.) The estates' complaints
allege that Allen Ivanov purchased the rifle approximately a
week before the shooting. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 7, 16 at 5-6, 16-1
at 9.) The complaints further allege that the Ivanovs were
aware of Allen Ivanov's history of mental health issues
and the fact that he had purchased the gun but failed to take
steps to protect others. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 7-8, 16 at 8-9,
16-1 at 10-11.) The Ivanovs tendered the defense and
indemnity to IDS, which has provided a defense under a
reservation of rights. (Dkt. No. 15 at 9.)
brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that it
does not have a duty to defend or to indemnify the Ivanovs
because the shooting was not a covered loss under the
policies. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Ivanovs filed an answer and
counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that: (1) coverage
exists under the policies; (2) IDS owes them a duty to defend
and indemnify in the state court actions and in all future
actions arising out of the shooting; and (3) each shot Allen
Ivanov fired was a separate occurrence for purposes of
coverage under the policies. (Dkt. No. 9 at 13-14.) IDS has
since filed an amended complaint that joins the estates as
additional Defendants in this case, names “doe
defendants, ” and recognizes, but disputes, the
Ivanovs' contention that each shot constitutes a separate
occurrence. (Dkt. No. 15 at 1, 9-10.) Defendants have each
filed an answer to the amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 24,
25, 26.) IDS moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Dkt. No. 29.)
requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following
documents filed in Snohomish County Superior Court, as well
as the facts contained therein: (1) the affidavit of probable
cause against Allen Ivanov; (2) Allen Ivanov's guilty
plea; (3) the Snohomish County Superior Court judge's
amended report regarding the guilty plea; (4) the complaint
of the estate of Jacob Long; and (5) the complaint of the
estate of Anna Bui. (Dkt. Nos. 31, 31-1-31-5.)
Court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts, but
only in the absence of a reasonable dispute about those
facts. Fed.R.Evid. 201(a)-(b). Adjudicative facts concern the
parties in an action, or their properties and businesses-the
facts that a jury would review. See Fed. R. Evid.
201(a) advisory committee's notes to 1972 proposed rules.
Facts are not subject to reasonable dispute if they are
either “generally known” or “can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).
Court may take judicial notice of documents filed in
Washington state court cases. See Khazali v. Berns,
No. C16-1022-JLR, Dkt. No. 7 at 3 n.3 (W.D. Wash. 2016)
(collecting cases). If the facts in such documents are
disputed, “judicial notice is limited to recognizing
that the documents exist, but not for the truth of the
matters set forth therein, as those factual matters remain
contested.” Brown v. Home Depot, No.
C14-0896-RSM, Dkt. No. 20 at 6 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (citing
NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC, 887 F.Supp.2d
977, 984-85 (E.D. Cal. 2012)).
documents IDS seeks judicial notice of are adjudicative in
nature because they concern facts that a jury would review at
trial. Further, the parties do not dispute the documents'
existence. Therefore, the Court shall take judicial notice of
the fact that the documents exist have been filed in the
Snohomish County Superior Court. However, the affidavit of
probable cause is not sworn testimony and reflects the
beliefs of the signing deputy prosecuting attorney, and thus
the facts therein are not properly subject to judicial
notice. (See Dkt. No. 31-1 at 2); see United
States v. Lopez-Solis, 447 F.3d 1201, 1210-11 (9th Cir.
2006). Similarly, the factual allegations in the estates'
state court complaints have not been tried and are being
contested in state court by ...