Nomura Holding America Inc. v. Federal Insurance, 629 F. App'x 38

Nomura Holding America, Inc. sued Federal Insurance Company after Federal denied coverage under professional liability Policies for five underlying lawsuits.
The Policies define “Related Claims” as all claims "based upon, arising from, or in consequence of the same or related facts, circumstances, situations, transactions or events or the same or related series of facts, circumstances, situations, transactions or events."
A Plumbers’ Union claim was first made in 2008 and Federal treated that claim as grouping later suits as “Related Claims,” thereby excluding coverage for the subsequent suits.
The district court granted summary judgment for Federal, applying a “factual nexus” test to find the underlying claims were related to the Plumbers’ Union claim.
Nomura appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the standard for interpreting the Policies’ Related Claims provision and that the later suits should not be treated as related.
The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding the later suits fall within the Policies’ Related Claims definition and therefore are excluded by the Plumbers’ Union claim’s earlier date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper test to interpret "Related Claims" provision	District court erred using "factual nexus" test; contract language controls	Policies’ language covers claims that are "based upon, arising from, or in consequence of" same/related facts	Court: Contract’s plain language controls; factual nexus unnecessary but district court’s result stands
Whether the five underlying suits are "Related Claims" to the Plumbers’ Union claim	The underlying suits are sufficiently distinct and thus not barred by the earlier claim	The underlying suits arise from the same or related facts/events and are Related Claims	Court: The five suits are Related Claims under the Policies’ definition
Effect of Plumbers’ Union claim timing on coverage	Later suits should be treated separately so coverage applies	Because they are Related Claims and Plumbers’ claim was first made in 2008, later suits are outside coverage period	Court: Because Plumbers’ claim was first made in 2008, the later suits fall outside Policy coverage
Whether any genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment	There are factual distinctions warranting trial	No genuine dispute: side-by-side review shows relation under the Policy language	Court: No genuine dispute; summary judgment for Federal affirmed

Nomura Holding Am., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 45 F. Supp. 3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (district court opinion applying factual nexus analysis and comparing underlying claims to the Plumbers’ claim)
VAM Check Cashing Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 699 F.3d 727 (2d Cir. 2012) (contracts are interpreted under plain language where unambiguous)