Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mariah Re Ltd. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 14-4062-cv (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 14-4062-cv Visitors: 35
Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-4062-cv Mariah Re Ltd. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT S U M M A R Y O R D E R 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
More
14-4062-cv Mariah Re Ltd. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT S U M M A R Y O R D E R 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 TO 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th 4 day of June, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 Present: RALPH K. WINTER, 7 CHESTER J. STRAUB, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 MARIAH RE LIMITED (In Liquidation), acting by and through 14 Geoffrey Varga and Jess Shakespeare, in their capacities as 15 Liquidators thereof, 16 17 Plaintiff-Appellant, 18 v. No. 14-4062-cv 19 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ISO SERVICES, 20 INCORPORATED, AIR WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, 21 22 Defendants-Appellees. 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 25 MARIAH RE LTD.: JONATHAN D. COGAN, Kobre & Kim 26 LLP, New York, NY. 27 28 29 1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE 2 AM. FAMILY MUTUAL INS. CO.: ROBERT A. KOLE, (Jean-Paul 3 Jaillet, Choate, Hall & 4 Stewart, David S. Douglas and 5 Adam M. Felsenstein, Gallet 6 Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, on the 7 brief), Choate, Hall & 8 Stewart, Boston, MA. 9 10 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ISO 11 SERVS., INC. AND AIR WORLDWIDE 12 CORP.: JOEL M. COHEN (Matthew B. 13 Rowland, on the brief), Davis 14 Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, 15 NY. 16 17 Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court 18 for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.). 19 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 20 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 21 Mariah Re Ltd. (“Mariah”) appeals from Judge Sullivan’s 22 dismissal of its claims against American Family Mutual Insurance 23 Co. (“American Family”), ISO Services, Inc. (“PCS”), and AIR 24 Worldwide Corporation (“AIR”). 25 Mariah is a special purpose entity created to provide 26 reinsurance amounts to American Family in the event of severe 27 storms in various geographical areas. The amounts owed to 28 American Family by Mariah were not geared to losses actually 29 insured by American Family but rather to a formula dealing with 30 severe weather events in designated areas. Mariah contracted 31 with PCS, a preexisting entity that monitors severe weather 2 1 events, for a subscription to PCS’s databases and associated 2 bulletins. Under Mariah’s contract with AIR, AIR was to 3 calculate the amount Mariah owed American Family under the 4 reinsurance contract using data that PCS had compiled on a given 5 storm. Following a particularly catastrophic storm in the Midwest 6 in April 2011, AIR applied the predetermined calculations to data 7 from PCS’s catastrophe bulletin and determined that Mariah was 8 liable for the full amount of the reinsurance policy. American 9 Family collected the amount from an escrow agent pursuant to its 10 contract with Mariah. Based principally on addenda issued by 11 PCS, Mariah sued the various appellees, claiming breach of 12 contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 13 dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and tortious interference 14 with contract. The district court granted appellees’ Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 16 We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for 17 substantially the reasons stated by Judge Sullivan in his opinion 18 of September 30, 2014. 19 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer