The Cone Insurance Company, Inc. v. Auto Owners Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2018cv00695 - Document 21 (M.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 3 MOTION to Stay or Dismiss proceedings and to Compel binding arbitration to the extent that: (1) Plf The Cone Insurance Company, Inc., and defendant Auto Owners Insurance Company shall promptly submit their di spute to arbitration, in accordance with the terms of their contract (doc. no. 3 -1); (2) the alternative 3 motion to dismiss is denied; (3) this case is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration proceedings; further ORDERING that plf The Cone Insurance Company, Inc. is to file a status report with the court (a) on or before the first day of every third month, starting on 3/1/2019, informing the court of the status of the arbitration, and (b) within 14 days of the completion of the arbitration proceeding; This case is closed administratively until further order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/21/18. (djy, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Cone Insurance Company, Inc. v. Auto Owners Insurance Company et al Doc. 21 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION THE CONE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and BEAVERS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18cv695-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff The Cone Insurance Company, Inc., filed this lawsuit in state court against defendants Auto Owners Insurance Company and Beavers Restaurant Group, Inc., seeking both a declaratory judgment that Cone Insurance is not responsible for certain insurance premiums that Auto Owners drafted from its account, and an order that Auto Owners refund the premiums; in addition, or in the alternative, Cone Insurance seeks compensation from Beavers Restaurant for the disputed premiums. Auto Owners timely removed the case to this Dockets.Justia.com court, and Beavers Restaurant consented to the removal. Jurisdiction (removal) is and proper 1332 under 28 (diversity). U.S.C. This §§ case 1441 is now before the court on Auto Owners’ motion to stay or dismiss the arbitrate case its and claims to compel against Cone Auto Insurance Owners. to Cone Insurance concedes that it should be required to submit to arbitration of its claims in Eaton County, Michigan, pursuant to its contract with Auto Owners. The court will grant the motion to compel arbitration as to Cone Insurance’s claims against Auto Owners, and will stay the case between these parties. As for Restaurant, Cone the Insurance’s parties are claims in against agreement Beavers that the pending claims should not be subject to arbitration. As the arbitrator’s resolution could moot Cone Insurance’s claims against Beavers Restaurant, in the interest of judicial efficiency, and based upon the representations made upon 2 the record during the conference call on December 19, 2018, the court will stay Cone Insurance’s claims against Beavers Restaurant as well until the arbitration is finished. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERDED that the motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings and to compel binding arbitration (doc. no. 3) is granted to the extent that: (1) Plaintiff The Cone Insurance Company, Inc., and defendant Auto Owners Insurance Company shall promptly submit their dispute to arbitration, in accordance with the terms of their contract (doc. no. 3-1). (2) The alternative motion to dismiss (doc. no. 3) is denied. (3) This case is stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceedings. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff The Cone Insurance Company, Inc. is to file a status report with the court (a) on or before the first day of every third month, starting on March 1, 2019, informing the court 3 of the status of the arbitration, and (b) within 14 days of the completion of the arbitration proceeding. This case is closed administratively until further order. DONE, this the 21st day of December, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
