Seneca Insurance v. Everest Reinsurance Co. , 581 F. App'x 53 ( 2014 )

13-4201-cv
Seneca Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 16th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 13-4201-cv
16
17 EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY,
18 Defendant-Appellee.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: BARRY SARETSKY, Saretsky Katz
22 Dranoff & Glass, LLP, New York,
23 New York.
24
25 FOR APPELLEE: DAVID L. PITCHFORD (with Daniel
26 S. Brower on the brief),
27 Pitchford Law Group LLC, New
28 York, New York.
1
1
2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
3 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
6 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
7 AFFIRMED.
8
9 Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. (“Seneca”) appeals from
10 the judgment of the United States District Court for the
11 Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.), granting
12 summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Everest
13 Reinsurance Company (“Everest Re”). Seneca provided $5
14 million in liability insurance to the Kentucky Lottery
15 Corporation (“KLC”), with a $5 million self-insured
16 retention. When judgments were rendered against KLC in an
17 action by two former employees, Seneca paid and in turn
18 sought coverage from Everest Re, which denied coverage.
19
20 The district court ruled that the interest amounts
21 included in the judgments entered against KLC were properly
22 considered “interest on a judgment,” which under the
23 reinsurance terms is not a covered loss. For that reason,
24 the $5 million loss that triggers Everest Re’s obligation to
25 pay had not been reached. We assume the parties’
26 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
27 history, and the issues presented for review.
28
29 “We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.”
30 ReAmerica, S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank Int’l, 577 F.3d 102, 105
31 (2d Cir. 2009). Upon such review, we find that the district
32 court properly granted summary judgment to Everest Re.
33
34 For the reasons stated in the Decision and Order of the
35 district court, and finding no merit in Seneca’s other
36 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district
37 court.
38
39 FOR THE COURT:
40 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
41
2