Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In Re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 671 F.3d 980

Thorpe Insulation and Pacific Insulation filed Chapter 11; §524(g) plan creates a trust to channel asbestos claims; plan assigns insurance rights to the trust and preserves defenses with exceptions; plan includes channeling, Settling/Non‑Settling insurer injunctions, and a valuation matrix for claims; insurers sought standing to challenge plan but were denied; plan was labeled insurance neutral but effects on insurers argued to be substantive

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the § 524(g) plan insurance neutral?	Appellants: plan not neutral; directly affects insurers	Debtors: plan is insurance neutral	Plan not insurance neutral; insurers have standing to challenge
Do Appellants have bankruptcy standing to object?	Appellants have legally protected interest	Plan neutral; no standing	Appellants have bankruptcy standing; should be heard
Do Appellants have Article III standing to appeal?	Insurers suffer concrete injury to contracts and finances	No injury alleged beyond plan scrutiny	Appellants have Article III standing
Are the anti-assignment clauses preempted by federal law?	State contract rights not preempted	541(c) preempts anti-assignment; implied preemption arguments	541(c) preempts anti-assignment clauses; preemption upheld

In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 391 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2004) (insurers may have standing when plan not truly insurance neutral)
In re GIT, LLC, 645 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2011) (standing and participation in bankruptcy proceedings; insurance neutrality context)
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1985) (preemption and Supremacy Clause considerations)
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (U.S. 2000) (conflict preemption analysis; purpose of Congress""s objectives)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability)