Cases

MOORE, Circuit Judge. The government appeals from the United States Court of International Trade’s (“Trade Court”) judgment on the pleadings holding that the government is not entitled to non-statutory equitable interest for unpaid antidumping duties for imported goods. United States v. Am. Home As sur. Co., 100 F.Supp.3d 1364, 1373 (Ct. I

OPINION EATON, Judge: This matter is before the court on the cross-motions lor summary judgment of plaintiff United States (“plaintiff’ or “the Government”), on behalf of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency (“Customs”), and defendant American Home Assurance Company (“defendant” or “AHAC”). ' See Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J.

OPINION GORDON, Judge: This consolidated collection action 1 is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Consol. Court No. 09-00403, ECF No. 59 (“Def.’s Br.”); Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Consol. Court No. 09-00403, ECF No. 61 (“Pl.’s

OPINION GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: Plaintiff the United States (“the United States” or “the government”) commenced this action to recover unpaid antidumping duties plus pre- and postjudgment interest from surety Defendant American Home Assurance Company (“AHAC”). Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held AHAC liable for th

OPINION EATON, Judge: This matter is before the court on the cross-motions for summary judgment of plaintiff, the United States (“plaintiff’ or the “United States”), on behalf of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency (“Customs”), and defendant American Home Assurance Company (“defendant” or “AHAC”).' See

SCHALL, Circuit Judge. American Home Assurance Company (“AHAC”) appeals, and the government cross-appeals, the final decision of the United States Court of International Trade in United States v. American Home Assurance Co., 964 F.Supp.2d 1342 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (‘American Home ”). In its decision, the Court of International Trade made

MEMORANDUM and ORDER GORDON, Judge: Pending before the court is Defendant American Home Assurance Company’s (“AHAC”) motion, pursuant to USCIT Rules 67 and 67.1, for permission to deposit into an interest-bearing account moneys representing the antidumping duties owed to Plaintiff United States (the “Government”) under the surety bonds in issue in three

OPINION GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: This case is before the court on competing cross-motions for summary judgment. In this action on a bond, Plaintiff, the United States (“United States” or “the Government”), seeks recovery of unpaid antidumping duties from surety Defendant American Home Assurance Company (“AHAC”). The parties dispute (1) whe

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 24, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, the first cause of action, for declaratory relief, reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Giving the complaint a liberal construction and every favorable inference (

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 766.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action in its amended complaint seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Amoco Construction Corp. in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant, upon a search of the recor

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action in its amended complaint seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Amoco Construction Corp. in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant, upon a search of the recor

135 P.3d 450 (2006) 206 Or. App. 1 CASCADE CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., a New York corporation; American Star Insurance Co., a Wisconsin corporation; Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., a California corporation; Granite State Insurance Co., a New Hampshire corporation; Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania corporation; Millers Mutual Fire

128 Cal.Rptr.2d 430 (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 406 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SOCIÉTÉ COMMERCIALE TOTÉLECTRIC, Defendant and Appellant. No. A093974. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three. December 17, 2002. Rehearing Denied January 13, 2003. Review Denied April 9, 2003.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 20–0769 Submitted January 20, 2022—Filed June 10, 2022 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Appellee, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge. A workers’ compensation insurer appeals from a ruling on judicial review reversing the

FILED Feb 28 2024, 8:55 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 20-0769 Filed July 21, 2021 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals from a ruling on judi

319 B.R. 345 (2005) In re RAYTECH CORPORATION; Raymark Industries, Inc.; and Raymark Corporation, Debtors. American Home Assurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Plaintiffs, v. Laureen M. Ryan, Trustee, Chapter 11 Trustee of Raymark Industries, Inc. and Raymark Corporation, Raymark Industries, Inc., Raymark Corporation, Raytech Corporation, and Raybestos Products Company, Defendants.

219 F.Supp.2d 710 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, for the Use of BLUMENTHAL-KAHN ELECTRIC LTD. PARTNERSHIP, and Blumenthal-Kahn Electric Ltd. Partnership, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 02-743-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia. September 4, 2002. *711 Thomas Moore Lawson, Lawso