Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority v Dongbu Insurance Company Ltd [2002] GUSC 3; 2002 Guam 03 (22 March 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GUAM HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (GHURA),
A Public Body Corporate and Politic,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent

vs.

DONGBU INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
(fka KOREA AUTOMOBILE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD.)
Defendant/Appellee/Petitioner

Supreme Court Case No. CVA00-029
Superior Court Case No. CV0183-95

OPINION

Cite as: 2002 Guam 3

Filed: March 22, 2002

Petition for Rehearing
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent: Daniel J. Berman, Esq. Berman, O=Connor & Mann Suite 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Defendant/Appellee/Petitioner: Thomas C. Sterling, Esq. Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson Suite 1008, Pacific News Bldg. 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice, and BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Justice Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Petitioner Dongbu Insurance Company, Ltd. filed a petition for rehearing following the opinion issued by this court in GHURA v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2001 Guam 24. Dongbu argued that this court overlooked or misapprehended a point of law when it declined to consider the lower court=s denial of Dongbu=s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. We grant the petition for rehearing after concluding that a cross-appeal did not need to be filed for our review of the issue, and consider the merits of the matter without the submission of further briefs or arguments by the parties. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dongbu=s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

I.

[2] Respondent Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (hereinafter AGHURA@) filed suit against Petitioner Dongbu Insurance Company, Ltd. (hereinafter ADongbu@), seeking payment on an insurance claim. The lower court granted Dongbu=s motion for summary judgment upon a finding that GHURA=s claim was barred by the policy=s provision requiring that all claims be filed within one year after the inception of loss. GHURA appealed the judgment. On review, this court adopted the doctrine of equitable tolling and found that application of the doctrine to the facts of this case raised genuine issues of material fact. GHURA, 2001 Guam 24, && 14, 24. Therefore, we reversed the trial court=s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. & 26.

[3] In its appellate brief, Dongbu argued that even if this court were to find equitable tolling saved GHURA=s claim, there existed an alternative ground for affirming the lower court=s ruling. Specifically, Dongbu had made a motion in the lower court to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The motion to dismiss was denied, but the court alternatively fined GHURA One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in attorney