Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

IN RE REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

United States District Court, S.D. New York


February 24, 2004.

In re REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1348) This Document Relates to: 03-Civ-8928

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 236 (Motion for Emergency Stay)
Defendant Dr. Kurt F. Bruckmeier seeks an emergency stay of this action. He alleges that his insurer. Doctors Insurance Reciprocal ("DIR"), which allegedly is obliged to assume and pay for his defense, is insolvent and barred, by the order of a Mississippi state court, from defending Dr. Bruckmeier in this Rezulin action. Dr. Bruckmeier alleges that he has "no other coverage [save DIR's] applicable to the allegations of the Plaintiff," which the Court takes to mean that Dr. Bruckmeier is arguing that a stay is necessary so that he does not have to pay his own defense costs. No party has opposed the motion, but it is denied for the same reasons stated in the PTO 223, which dealt with a substantially identical application.*fn1

The pertinent facts alleged are that the Chancery Court of Tennessee issued an order on January 31, 2003 appointing the Tennessee Insurance Commissioner as Receiver in Rehabilitation for DIR and entered an injunction staying for 90 days all litigation in Tennessee that was either pending against, or being defended by, DIR.*fn2 The Tennessee injunction then was made applicable to all Mississippi litigation against DIR by the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi.*fn3 Page 2

  The motion is denied as moot. The State of Tennessee's original 90-day injunction (and the related Mississippi court order) would have expired on or about April 30, 2003 — nearly one year ago ___ and Dr. Bruckmeier has offered no evidence that the injunction was extended. In so ruling, the Court expresses no view on the merits of this application, although it is far from clear, were a state injunction currently in effect, that Dr. Bruckmeier would prevail. See Royal & Sunalliance Ins. Co. of America v. Settlement Health & Med. Serv., Inc., 2000 WL 679788 (S.D.N. Y, 2000).

  SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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