DocketNumber: 10-2134-cv (L), 10-2410-cv (Con)
Filed Date: 6/14/2011
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
10-2134-cv (L) General Star National Insurance Company v. NY Marine and General Insurance Company 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 14th day of June, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Circuit Judge, 10 JED S. RAKOFF, 11 District Judge.* 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 14 GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE 15 COMPANY, 16 Defendant-Cross-Claimant- 17 Cross-Defendant-Appellant, 18 19 -v.- 10-2134-cv (L); 20 10-2410-cv (Con) 21 UNIVERSAL FABRICATORS, INC., MUTUAL 22 MARINE OFFICE, INC., NEW YORK MARINE 23 AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 24 Defendants-Cross-Defendants- 25 Cross-Claimants-Appellees.** 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ** The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. 1 FOR APPELLANT: Michael S. Gollub (Christopher T. 2 Bradley, on the brief), Marshall, Conway, 3 Wright & Bradley PC, New York, New York. 4 5 FOR APPELLEES: Patrick W. Brophy, McMahon, Martine & 6 Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn, New York. 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, 10 J.). 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 14 AFFIRMED. 15 16 General Star National Insurance Company (“General 17 Star”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District 18 Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) 19 granting summary judgment in favor of the New York Marine 20 and General Insurance Company and Mutual Marine Office, Inc. 21 (“Mutual Marine”). Both Mutual Marine, as the primary 22 insurer, and General Star, as the excess insurer, insured 23 Universal Fabricators, Inc. (“UFI”). After a remand from 24 this Court, Gen. Star Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Universal 25 Fabricators, Inc.,585 F.3d 662
(2d Cir. 2009), the district 26 court held that General Star was obligated to reimburse 27 Mutual Marine for the amount it paid in excess of its policy 28 limit in connection with a state court suit and an agreement 29 apportioning a share of liability in that suit to UFI. We 30 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 31 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 32 33 This Court “review[s] a district court’s grant of 34 summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the 35 light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all 36 reasonable inferences in its favor.” Allianz Ins. Co. v. 37 Lerner,416 F.3d 109
, 113 (2d Cir. 2005). “We will affirm 38 the judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any 39 material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to a 40 judgment as a matter of law.”Id.
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 56(c)). “We are free to affirm an appealed decision on any 42 ground which finds support in the record, regardless of the 43 ground upon which the trial court relied.” Reid v. 2 1 Senkowski,961 F.2d 374
, 378 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal 2 quotation marks and brackets omitted) (per curiam). 3 4 General Star’s policy provides that its coverage 5 extends to UFI’s “ultimate net loss” which “may be 6 established by adjudication, arbitration or a compromise 7 settlement to which [General Star] ha[s] previously agreed 8 in writing.” J.A. at 279. General Star protests that it 9 never agreed to the compromise agreement giving rise to the 10 apportionment of liability in the underlying action against 11 UFI. However, at a time when it was anticipated that the 12 underlying action would not implicate its coverage, General 13 Star told Mutual Marine to “handle [the matter] as [it] 14 s[aw] fit” and informed Mutual Marine that it had closed its 15 file. J.A. at 186. Accordingly, Mutual Marine discharged 16 its duty to defend UFI by retaining counsel, who entered 17 into the agreement apportioning liability. See N.Y. Marine 18 & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.,599 F.3d 102
, 125 19 n.11 (2d Cir. 2010) (observing insurer generally conducts 20 defense of insured). General Star therefore relinquished 21 its ability to demand compliance with its policy provision 22 requiring written consent to a compromise agreement. 23 24 General Star further contends that counsel for UFI 25 lacked authority to enter into the agreement apportioning 26 liability. Even if counsel for UFI was not authorized to 27 enter this partial settlement agreement, the consequence 28 would be that (through counsel) the insured breached a 29 contractual duty of cooperation owed by the insured to 30 Mutual Marine. See Lowell v. Twin Disc, Inc.,527 F.2d 767
, 31 770 (2d Cir. 1975) (observing that, under New York law, 32 “whenever the cooperation of the promisee is necessary for 33 the performance of the promise, there is a condition implied 34 that the cooperation will be given” (internal quotation 35 marks omitted)). Mutual Marine has obviously waived any 36 such defense to payment. Since Mutual Marine was authorized 37 by General Star to handle things as it saw fit, General Star 38 has no complaint on this score either. 39 40 Having reviewed all of the arguments properly presented 41 on appeal, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district 42 court. 43 FOR THE COURT: 44 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 45 46 3
New York Marine & General Insurance v. Lafarge North ... ( 2010 )
Anthony Reid v. Daniel A. Senkowski, Superintendent, ... ( 1992 )
Frank Lowell v. Twin Disc, Incorporated ( 1975 )
allianz-insurance-company-as-subrogee-of-mercedes-benz-credit-corporation ( 2005 )
General Star National Insurance v. Universal Fabricators, ... ( 2009 )