Stryker Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11254
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Stryker obtained an excess TIG policy: $25 million per occurrence and in the aggregate, following the XL underlying policy.
- XL policy provides $15 million liability; TIG covers excess only after underlying insurance exhausts.
- Stryker II litigation: Stryker sought defense/indemnity under XL and then under TIG; Pfizer indemnification dispute spawned related suits.
- District court held XL liable for Pfizer claim and that Stryker could sustain a declaratory judgment against TIG; TIG appealed but district court denied reconsideration.
- XL settled Pfizer claim directly; district court addressed pre-judgment interest and issued a final judgment; TIG sought to amend/add clarify, which was denied.
- This appeal concerns issue preclusion, mootness of TIG’s obligations, and whether TIG can raise coverage defenses on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case moot as to TIG? | Stryker argues district rulings on XL exhaust the XL policy and moot TIG. | TIG argues the district rulings render Stryker’s claims against TIG moot and TIG is not bound by Stryker I. | Not moot; exhaustion issues keep TIG potentially liable in excess of XL limits. |
| Does issue/preclusion bar TIG from raising coverage defenses on remand? | Stryker asserts TIG is bound by Stryker I rulings via preclusion. | TIG contends no privity and no full identity of parties to bind it; issues unsatisfied. | Preclusion partly barred; TIG not in privity, so can raise defenses; issue preclusion may apply to related issues. |
| Does TIG follow-form to XL affect preclusion/remand outcomes? | Stryker argues follow-form ties TIG’s interpretation to XL’s rulings. | TIG argues separate policy considerations; privity requirement not satisfied. | Follow-form does not automatically bind TIG; TIG may raise its own defenses on remand. |
| Can Stryker obtain pre-judgment interest from TIG based on Pfizer settlement? | Stryker seeks pre-judgment interest against XL; argues delays harmed them. | TIG contends no liability for pre-judgment interest; interest belongs to XL relief context. | Pre-judgment interest barred against TIG; only XL bears responsibility for such interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rory v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005) (insurance contracts interpreted like other contracts; clear terms favored; anti-ambiguity rules)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Ken’s Serv., 2012 WL 751038 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (caution on interpreting ambiguous policy language; (note: official reporter not provided here))
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment standards in declaratory judgment actions)
- Pfeil v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012) (test for applying issue preclusion in complex insurance disputes)
- Sturgell v. Gates, 553 U.S. 880 (S. Ct. 2008) (preclusion framework; privity limitations; nonparty representations)
- Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 193 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 1999) (adequate representation and privity concepts in preclusion analysis)
- United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2007) (privity and nonparty effects in judgments)