Wausau Business Insurance v. Sentosa Care LLC, 10 F. Supp. 3d 444

Wausau sues Sentosa Care LLC and numerous related entities in diversity alleging breach of three workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policies for 2008–2011 failures to pay retrospective premiums.
Defendants argue there were no contracts with entities other than Sentosa and that the policies are illegal due to lack of common ownership, seeking summary judgment or reconsideration.
Wausau contends there was an enforceable contract that incorporated by reference additional insureds and that the LRARO premiums were properly calculated and auditable.
The policies list multiple insureds as addenda; LRARO retrospective premium calculations apply to all insureds collectively; audits and payments are central to the damages claimed.
Wausau provided documentation and audits showing premiums, adjustments, and payments; Defendants admitted coverage but contested retrospective charges and ownership classifications.
The court grants Wausau’s motion for summary judgment on the breach and damages, denies reconsideration, and awards specific sums for each policy, while affirming diversity jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of a contract	Wausau—Wausau shows policies list additional insureds via endorsements and Item 3.	Sentosa—only Sentosa was named; other entities were not contractually bound.	Contracts exist; all three policies bound the Defendants.
Legality of combining non-common-ownership entities	Experience Rating Manual allows combination; ownership information supported initial binding.	Policies illegal due to lack of common ownership.	Contracts enforceable; not rescinded on ownership grounds.
Wausau’s performance under the contracts	Wausau performed by handling hundreds of claims; premiums/adjustments issued.	Defendants dispute performance only on retrospective terms.	Wausau fully performed.
Defendants’ breach and damages	Unpaid retrospective premiums, assessments, and surcharges evidenced by audits.	Plaintiff failed to provide full policies, calculations, or authentic audits.	Damages proven; specific amounts awarded for each policy.
Jurisdiction and reconsideration	Diversity jurisdiction remains; reconsideration unnecessary.	Request to revisit diversity ruling.	Diversity jurisdiction remains; reconsideration denied.

Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp., 97 A.D.2d 724 (1st Dep’t 1983) (insured bound by policy terms after acceptance and claims filed)
Home Indem. Co. v. Castel Constr., Inc., 128 Misc.2d 1026 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (insureds bound where they benefited from coverage)