In 2004, General Fire & Casualty, an Idaho insurance company, filed a Complaint against Guy Carpenter, a reinsurance intermediary. After the deadline set forth in the Court’s scheduling order, Guy Carpenter filed a motion with the court for leave to amend his complaint (for the fourth time) to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the statute of limitations was inapplicable to the action, and therefore amending the pleadings would be futile. The Court disagreed, concluding that the defendant established good cause for modifying the scheduling order under FRCP 16(b) and therefore should be given leave to amend the pleadings under FRCP 15(a).
The Court also addressed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel responses to discovery requests. The requests are too numerous and detailed to explain here. The Court granted a majority of Defendant’s requests relating to: (1) contingent commission/steering claims; (2) “finite” contracts and risk transfer issues; and (3) broker duties and training. General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Guy Carpenter, Case No. CV 05-251-S-LMB (D. Idaho, March 2, 2007).