Aspen American Insurance Company v. Morrow et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEB MORROW, MARCUS LYON,
SHERRIE LYON,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00013-JMK
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court at Docket 25 is Plaintiff Aspen American Insurance
Company’s (“Aspen”) Addendum to Motion for Default Judgment/Renewed Motion for
Default Judgment. On September 21, 2022, Aspen filed a motion for default judgment as
to Defendant Jeb Morrow.1 After considering the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, 782
F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court denied Aspen’s motion without prejudice in
an order dated November 30, 2022.2 In that order, the Court noted that the Eitel factors,
on balance, favored entry of default judgment, subject to Aspen’s submission of an
authentic, true, and correct copy of the insurance policy in force between Aspen and
1 Docket 16.
2 Docket 23.
Case 3:22-cv-00013-JMK Document 26 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 3

Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrow et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00013-JMK
Order Granting Renewed Motion for Default Judgment 	Page 2
Defendant Morrow.3 	The Court denied Aspen’s motion without prejudice to refiling a
renewed motion containing a signed copy of the insurance policy and an affidavit from
Aspen or the issuing agent certifying that the copy of the policy provided is an authentic,
true, and correct copy.4
On December 8, 2022, Aspen filed its renewed motion for default judgment.5
The motion includes: (1) a copy of the insurance policy containing a signature from Sea-
Mountain Insurance, and (2) an affidavit from Sea-Mountain Insurance certifying that the
copy of the policy provided is “the authentic, true, and correct copy of the Insurance Policy
and 	contains 	all 	provisions, 	terms, 	conditions, 	and 	warranties 	incorporated 	into
Defendant’s policy.”6 	Aspen contends that the policy need not bear a signature from
Defendant Morrow in order to be valid.7
Having considered Aspen’s submission, the Court finds that Aspen has
demonstrated that there is minimal possibility of a dispute concerning material facts and
that the record supports entering default judgment in favor of Aspen.8 	Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Aspen’s Addendum to Motion for Default Judgment/Renewed Motion
3 Id. at 21. Aspen provided a copy of the insurance policy in an earlier filing at Docket 1-
1, but the copy provided there lacked any signatures from Defendant Morrow or the issuing agent
(Sea-Mountain Insurance) and a certification that it was an authentic, true, and correct copy of the
policy. Because one of the Eitel factors requires the Court to evaluate “the possibility of a dispute
concerning materials facts,” the Court expected Aspen to offer evidence confirming that the copy
of the insurance policy provided was authentic, true, correct, and complete so as to minimize the
possibility of a factual dispute. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72; Docket 23 at 19–20.
4 Docket 23 at 25–26.
5 Docket 25.
6 Docket 25-1.
7 Docket 25 at 2.
8 Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72.
Case 3:22-cv-00013-JMK Document 26 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 3

Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrow et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00013-JMK
Order Granting Renewed Motion for Default Judgment 	Page 3
for Default Judgment at Docket 25. The Court’s default judgment against Defendant will
follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00013-JMK Document 26 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 3