594 F. App'x 700
2d Cir.2014Background
- Utica Mutual Insurance Co. (Utica) sues Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (Munich) seeking payment of expenses and declaratory relief under a facultative reinsurance certificate covering Goulds Pumps’ umbrella policy.
- Certificate has $5 million liability limit, allegedly covering losses and expenses; expenses are claimed to be within the limit or separately capped.
- Munich has paid $5 million; Utica contends expenses are not subject to the limit.
- District court granted summary judgment for Munich, agreeing the limit includes expenses, and denied Utica’s Rule 56(d) discovery motion to obtain more evidence on choice of law.
- Second Circuit reviews de novo and remands for further proceedings, finding ambiguity in whether the limit includes expenses and that extrinsic evidence may be relevant upon remand.
- Certificate lacks a choice-of-law clause; the court applies New York choice-of-law rules (interest analysis) to determine applicable law
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Certificate’s $5M limit includes expenses. | Utica argues expenses are not subject to the limit. | Munich contends expenses fall within the limit. | Ambiguity; remand needed to consider extrinsic evidence. |
| What law governs interpretation of the Certificate and whether extrinsic evidence is admissible. | Utica argues New York law with possible extrinsic evidence. | Munich argues for the district court’s approach; extrinsic evidence may be needed. | Choice of law is unresolved; extrinsic evidence potentially relevant on remand. |
| Whether the district court properly denied Utica’s discovery request to obtain choice-of-law evidence. | Utica seeks discovery to support choice-of-law analysis. | Munich opposes further discovery. | Remand may address discovery issues; district court’s ruling not final on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993) (limits interpretation and expense-inclusiveness considerations in reinsurance)
- Bellefonte Reins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990) (presumptions about expense-inclusiveness in certain contexts)
- Excess Insurance Co. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 822 N.E.2d 768 (N.Y. 2004) (suggested presumptions about expense-inclusiveness of a limit; context-dependent)
- Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898 (2d Cir. 1997) (definition of contract ambiguity)
- Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 136 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (assignment of plain meaning when contract is not ambiguous)
- Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 302 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (evidence on specification of terms in reinsurance context)
- Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for summary judgment; de novo review)