Swift Lumber, Inc. v. Accelerant National Insurance Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SWIFT LUMBER, INC., 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION No. 24-00236-KD-N
)
ACCELERANT SPECIALTY INSURANCE )
COMPANY, 	)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Motion to Leave to File First Amended Complaint
filed by Plaintiff Swift Lumber, Inc., (Doc. 46). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth
herein, the motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, Swift Lumber shall file its First Amended
Complaint on or before January 15, 2025 and Defendants Accelerant Specialty Insurance
Company and the substitute Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company shall file any
responsive pleading on or February 5, 2025. Upon filing the First Amended Complaint,
Defendant Mutual Boiler Re shall be terminated as a Defendant in this action.
Swift Lumber moves to amend the Complaint to substitute Factory Mutual as a party for
Mutual Boiler Re, clarify allegations involving Factory Mutual, and allege unjust enrichment and
interference with a business or contractual relationship claims against Factory Mutual, (Doc. 46).
Defendants Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company and Mutual Boiler Re do not oppose this
motion, but reserve all defenses, responses or rights to oppose the specific alelgations alleged in
the Amended Complaint, (Doc. 47, 49).
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amended and supplemental
pleadings. At this stage of the litigation, Swift Lumber may amend its pleadings with Accelerant
Case 1:24-cv-00236-KD-N Doc# 50 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

2
Specialty Insurance Company and Mutual Boiler Re’s written consent or leave of the court. Fed
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Rule instructs the district court that it “should freely give leave” to
amend the complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Since Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company and Mutual Boiler Re have filed written
consent, the motion is due to be granted. Additionally, the Court has not ascertained any
substantial reason to deny leave to amend. Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1340–1341
(11th Cir. 2014) (Finding that the district court “may consider several factors when deciding
whether to grant a motion to amend, including ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive [on the
part of the movant], repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of
amendment.”) (citations omitted).
DONE this 6th day of January, 2025.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00236-KD-N Doc# 50 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>