GOODEILL, et al. vs RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC

24CV074839: GOODEILL, et al. vs RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by CATHERINE GOODEILL (Plaintiff) CRS# 421710606871 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by CATHERINE GOODEILL on 03/23/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories Set One, No. 4.1 is GRANTED.

Form Interrogatory asks whether, at the time of the incident, there was in effect any policy of insurance through which Defendant “might” be insured for the claims arising out of the incident. Defendant responded that after making inquiries, it concluded that it does not have an insurance policy that might provide insurance for Plaintiff’s claims.

In his deposition testimony, Defendant’s managing member testified that Defendant had general liability insurance that covers all his properties. Defendant submits a declaration from its insurance broker Larissa May Torkelson Smith who states her “belief and expectation” that there is no coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims under Defendant’s insurance policies. This declaration does not negate the possibility that Defendant’s general liability policy for the property at which Plaintiffs resided “might” cover their claims arising out of the incident. (The Court also observes that Defendant previously filed this same declaration with the Court on January 2, 2026, and the Court did not find it determinative of the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ prior motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, which was granted on January 15, 2026.)

By no later than July 2, 2026, Defendant shall serve a further verified substantive response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, including all subparts, that identifies any insurance policy Defendant has or had that provides liability insurance for claims arising from the property at which Plaintiffs resided.

No monetary sanctions are awarded to anyone. Defendant acted with substantial justification in interpreting Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 as inquiring about insurance policies that Defendant and/or its insurance professionals believed would cover Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. However, the Court does not interpret Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 so narrowly.