Cases

SCHLESINGER, District Judge: This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action initiated by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company,, a subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc. (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed this action in response to a separate federal lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver (“FDIC-R”) for Community Bank & Trust (“

*275 OPINION PORTLEY, Judge: ¶ 1 This is a bad faith case. We are asked to decide whether an injured worker who was receiving medical treatment expenses and temporary total disability workers’ compensation benefits can sue the insurance company for bad faith and recover any unpaid

532 F.3d 797 (2008) AMERICAN GROWERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, a corporation within the United States Department of Agriculture; Risk Management Agency, an agency of and within the United States Department Agriculture, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Nos. 07-1655, 07-1749. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.<

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) Objection (D.E. 82) to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (D.E. 71) regarding Chicago Title Insurance Company’s (“Chicago Title”) and the FDIC’

OPINION OF THE COURT GARTH, Circuit Judge. This case involves a controversy over what obligations Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), the appellant/cross-appellee, owed to appellee/cross-appellant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) 1 with respect to costs and payment

PER CURIAM: * Wayne Robins was injured during an explosion at a chemical plant and filed suit in state court against multiple defendants, including Thomas & Betts Corporation (T & B). After his case was consolidated with other related cases, Robins agreed to cooperate with a plaintiff-company, AXA Global Risks (AXA), for the duration of the trial, in exchange for $900,000. In a subsequent e

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN F. GRADY, District Judge. Before the court are: (1) the third-party defendants’ motion to strike and dismiss or sever and transfer the claims against them; and (2) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, we grant the third-party defendants’ motion, and grant in part, and deny in part, the FDIC’s motion.

ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., District Judge. This case is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion [60] and DENIES Plaintiffs motion [51]. I. Background A. Factual Summary Jeffrey Grant wanted to purchase and develop 2.6 million dollars’ worth of re

OPINION AND ORDER Delgado-Hernández, District Judge. The Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver of Euro-bank, initiated this action against Euro-bank’s former Directors, related spouses and conjugal partnerships to recover approximately $55 Million in losses that it attributes to the Directors’ gross negligence in approving twelve “obviously risky and deficiently underwritten” unpaid

817 F.Supp.2d 290 (2011) FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SAFENET, INC., Carole Argo, and Anthony Caputo, Defendants. No. 09 CV 7863(NRB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 9, 2011. *292 Michael F. Perlis, Esq., Richard R. Johnson, Esq., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plain

Schindler, J. ¶1 An excess insurance policy provides coverage only after underlying insurance coverage is exhausted. Quellos Group LLC appeals summary judgment dismissal of the lawsuit against excess insurance carriers Federal Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company for failure to exhaust the underlying insurance coverage. The Federal policy states coverage “shall attach only after the insurers of the Underlying In

758 F.Supp.2d 251 (2010) FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SAFENET, INC., Carole Argo, and Anthony Caputo, Defendants. No. 09 Civ. 7863 NRB. United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 7, 2010. *253 Michael F. Perlis, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Andrew Hunter Rey

Memorandum Opinion & Order Gray H. Miller, United States District Judge Pending before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiff The Landing Council of Co-Owners (the “Council”) (Dkt. 22) and a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) (Dkt. 23). Federal also files an objection and a motion to strike the Council’s summary judgment evi

McKEE, Circuit Judge. Houbigant, Inc. and Establissment Hou-bigant (collectively, “Houbigant”) appeal the district court’s order granting Federal Insurance Company’s (“Federal”) motion for summary judgment and denying Hou- *195 bigant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

OPINION OF THE COURT Sullivan, J. Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company, claiming it should have contributed only $1,000,000 to the settlement, sues individually and as subrogee of Galaxy General Contracting Corp. to recoup half of the $2,000,000 it paid as Galaxy’s excess liability insurer to settle an underlying personal injury action in which Galaxy was a named defendant. In this action, Federal named as de

WORKMAN, Justice: The petitioners herein and defendants below, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, and Zurich American Insurance Company (hereinafter collectively “Zurich”), 1 invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the December 8, 2016, order entered by th

MEMORANDUM * KCTS Television appeals the district court’s orders dismissing its action against its insurance carrier, Federal Insurance Company, and denying its motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that KCTS’s loss from the first Red Bull petition is not covered under either the 2001-2002 policy or the 2008-2004 policy, we affirm. Under Washington law, courts must construe ins

MEMORANDUM * Under Washington law, insurance contracts “are interpreted according to the intent of the parties, which is discerned from the language of the contract and the circumstances in which it is formed.” Safeco Ins. Co. v. Auto. Club Ins. Co., 108 Wash.App. 468, 31 P.3d 52, 57 (2001) (footnote reference omitted). Further, “parties may ... contract for automobile insurance coverage that only

MEMORANDUM * Under Washington law, insurance contracts “are interpreted according to the intent of the parties, which is discerned from the language of the contract and the circumstances in which it is formed.” Safeco Ins. Co. v. Auto. Club Ins. Co., 108 Wash.App. 468, 31 P.3d 52, 57 (2001) (footnote reference omitted). Further, “parties may ... contract for automobile insurance coverage that only

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. PREFACE In today’s case (more procedurally complicated than substantively complex), a district judge issued an order requiring Char-tis Insurance Company to advance defense costs to former directors and officers of Westernbank of Puerto Rico, who find themselves in the cross-hairs of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FD