Is continental casualty liquidating

19-Jan-2020 03:42 by 7 Comments

Is continental casualty liquidating - christian dating new york city

§ 2201 regarding interpretation of certain provisions of the Plan. Under Illinois law, the basic rules of contract interpretation are well settled. along with any supporting materials, along with a Notice indicating the liquidated value of the Claim , as determined by the Liquidating Trust, and the allocated percentage of the liquidated value for which the Liquidating Trust contends Continental is responsible . Section 8.3 limits the number of Claims that may be submitted to Continental to 660 in any quarter and 2,500 in any calendar year. Continental is not being asked to pay more than its fair share.

As a result of the Settlements, plus the payment from Debtors' insolvent insurer Home Insurance Company, and the settlement with its excess insurer Safety National, the Trust initially had approximately million to pay Claims according to the Plan and the Trust Distribution Procedures (the "Insurance Fund"). The Allowance Motion stated that the Trust had received almost 28,000 Claims for review and had determined that approximately 14,000 Claims with a liquidated value of million satisfied the Trust Distribution Procedures' requirements for allowance. The Settling Insurers each performed their obligations under the Settlements as of the effective date of the Plan in 2012. Raymark Industries, Inc., 118 Ill.2d 23, 45–46, 112 Ill. For this case, this holding means a person working for one of the Debtors who was exposed to asbestos in 1985 suffered bodily injury at that time and Continental's obligation to pay all sums under its policies would thus be triggered. E.2d 150 (1987) the Illinois Supreme Court held that (1) an insurer must provide coverage of asbestos-related claims if the claimant suffered bodily injury, sickness or disease during the policy period; (2) bodily injury takes place at or shortly after the time a claimant is exposed to asbestos and continues throughout a claimant's exposure to asbestos; (3) an insurer whose policy is in force at the time a claimant is exposed to asbestos must provide coverage of that claim; and (4) each carrier whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for the total indemnity and defense costs of a claim without proration, i.e., must pay all sums. Neither party claims that there are disputed facts and neither claims the Plan is ambiguous. Accordingly, because the Trust's Proposals with an "allocated percentage" of 100% are, in Continental's view, invalid, Continental's 90–day time period to respond under § 8.3 of the Plan has not begun to run. It simply provides that the Trust is to make a Proposal to Continental stating the allocated percentage of the liquidated value of the Tendered Claims that the Trust contends is appropriate; it does not preclude the Trust from contending that Continental's allocated percentage is 100% of the liquidated value of the Tendered Claims. The Trust explains that when the Plan was confirmed, the number and the value of the Claims that would be allowed was unknown and whether any Allowed Claims would ever trigger Continental's policies was also unknown. Continental argues that the phrase "allocated percentage" in § 8.3 of the Plan must be given a technical, insurance-specific meaning which necessarily excludes an allocated percentage of 100%. This provision is relevant when Continental's insurance policies and some other insurance policies apply to a loss; the provision requires a reference to the other insurance policies to determine whether "contribution by equal shares" or "contribution by limits" is theoretically involved. To claim that this sort of delay is warranted by an equitable principle is astounding. Continental's counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U. The court has discretion to grant declaratory relief in appropriate circumstances such as this one. 1985) (noting declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying or settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties). The Trust argues that the language of § 8.3 of the Plan is clear. The Trust also argues that, while the language of § 8.3 does not require its Proposals to allocate as Continental insists, there is in fact no basis for equitable contribution because there is no unjust enrichment of the sort equitable contribution is designed to ameliorate. The primary objective is to give effect to the intention of the parties and a court will look first to the language of the contract to determine the parties' intent; a contract must be construed as a whole, viewing each provision in light of the other provisions; the parties' intent is not determined by viewing a clause or provision in isolation. The section gives Continental 90 days to inform the Trust whether it accepts or rejects the terms of any Proposal and describes what the Trust may do if Continental rejects a Proposal: the Trust may pay the Claim and then recover from Continental. First, Continental's approach would require the Trust to spread each Tendered Claim among each Settling Insurer's coverage—an undertaking that would seem to delay the closing of this case by many years and at significant administrative expense. Califano, Cooper, White and Cooper, San Francisco, CA, Joseph D. 2005) ; In re Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. On May 31, 2016, Continental filed its motion for partial summary judgment on its Counterclaim (the "Summary Judgment Motion").

Frank, Law Offices of Frank and Gecker, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Tittmann, Robert Whitney, Edison, Mc Dowell & Hetherington LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendant. Bankruptcy Judge (the "Trustee" and the "Trust"), filed his First Amended Complaint against Continental Casualty Company ("Continental"). The Summary Judgment Motion has been fully briefed. Sections 9.1–9.3 of the Plan incorporated the Settlements. The stipulation states that the parties believe that "certain pages of the insuring agreements of the policies may be missing." The court notes that there are, in fact, missing pages but whether the missing pages are only the referenced pages of the "insuring agreements" is unknown. The record version of the 1987 policy does not include this language as it consists of seven almost completely illegible pages. Continental had an obligation to respond to the Trust's Proposals regarding the Tendered Claims as provided by § 8.3 of the Plan. In insurance law, "the right to contribution is an equitable principle arising among co-insurers which permits one who has paid the entire loss to receive reimbursement from another insurer liable for the loss." , 82 Ill. Standing alone, this .9 million group of Non–Tendered Claims exhausts the remaining coverage under the Settling Insurers' policies. The word "tender" in § 8.3 does not have a technical meaning which it might have in another context, i.e., a coverage dispute. An "allocated percentage of 100%" is an allocation. Continental argues that § 8.3 of the Plan abrogates this rule and requires the Trust to perform a theoretical equitable contribution calculation for each Tendered Claim and its Proposals must necessarily employ some such allocation method—but excluding 100%—before Continental has any responsibility to respond to any Tendered Claim. Equitable contribution applies to policies that insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks. Continental argues that the "other insurance" clause in its policies supports its entitlement to contribution. Of these 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims, there are 1,037 claims with a liquidated value of .9 million that do not trigger Continental's policies. the allocated percentage of that liquidated value for which the liquidating trust contends Continental is responsible; b) That [the phrase] "allocated percentage" in § 8.3 of the Plan does not permit the Trust to seek the full liquidated value from Continental without allocating a percentage also to the trust fund received from other primary insurers;c) Continental owes no recovery to the Trust with respect to any Trust Claim absent an allocated percentage proposed to Continental;d) The Trustee did not comply with the above referenced tender requirements set forth in § 8.3 of the Plan. Continental contends that the precise allocation method is not yet at issue but, somewhat inconsistently, also contends that the Trust had to perform an equitable contribution analysis for each Tendered Claim and make an allocation based on it in any Proposal sent to Continental. The Trust points out that the .9 million in Tendered Claims fully exhaust the .56 million available under Continental's policies under any conceivable allocation method. The Trust asserts that (1) a "time on the risk" allocation method would impose at least a 10.7% liability on Continental based on its three years of coverage so its share of the Allowed Claims would exceed its .56 million policy limits by at least

Frank, Law Offices of Frank and Gecker, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Tittmann, Robert Whitney, Edison, Mc Dowell & Hetherington LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendant. Bankruptcy Judge (the "Trustee" and the "Trust"), filed his First Amended Complaint against Continental Casualty Company ("Continental"). The Summary Judgment Motion has been fully briefed. Sections 9.1–9.3 of the Plan incorporated the Settlements. The stipulation states that the parties believe that "certain pages of the insuring agreements of the policies may be missing." The court notes that there are, in fact, missing pages but whether the missing pages are only the referenced pages of the "insuring agreements" is unknown. The record version of the 1987 policy does not include this language as it consists of seven almost completely illegible pages.

Continental had an obligation to respond to the Trust's Proposals regarding the Tendered Claims as provided by § 8.3 of the Plan. In insurance law, "the right to contribution is an equitable principle arising among co-insurers which permits one who has paid the entire loss to receive reimbursement from another insurer liable for the loss." , 82 Ill. Standing alone, this $14.9 million group of Non–Tendered Claims exhausts the remaining coverage under the Settling Insurers' policies.

The word "tender" in § 8.3 does not have a technical meaning which it might have in another context, i.e., a coverage dispute. An "allocated percentage of 100%" is an allocation. Continental argues that § 8.3 of the Plan abrogates this rule and requires the Trust to perform a theoretical equitable contribution calculation for each Tendered Claim and its Proposals must necessarily employ some such allocation method—but excluding 100%—before Continental has any responsibility to respond to any Tendered Claim. Equitable contribution applies to policies that insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks. Continental argues that the "other insurance" clause in its policies supports its entitlement to contribution. Of these 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims, there are 1,037 claims with a liquidated value of $14.9 million that do not trigger Continental's policies.

the allocated percentage of that liquidated value for which the liquidating trust contends Continental is responsible; b) That [the phrase] "allocated percentage" in § 8.3 of the Plan does not permit the Trust to seek the full liquidated value from Continental without allocating a percentage also to the trust fund received from other primary insurers;c) Continental owes no recovery to the Trust with respect to any Trust Claim absent an allocated percentage proposed to Continental;d) The Trustee did not comply with the above referenced tender requirements set forth in § 8.3 of the Plan. Continental contends that the precise allocation method is not yet at issue but, somewhat inconsistently, also contends that the Trust had to perform an equitable contribution analysis for each Tendered Claim and make an allocation based on it in any Proposal sent to Continental. The Trust points out that the $7.9 million in Tendered Claims fully exhaust the $2.56 million available under Continental's policies under any conceivable allocation method. The Trust asserts that (1) a "time on the risk" allocation method would impose at least a 10.7% liability on Continental based on its three years of coverage so its share of the Allowed Claims would exceed its $2.56 million policy limits by at least $1.5 million; (2) a "pro rata by limits" allocation method would impose a liability of 18% of the policies issued by the solvent insurers which also exceeds Continental's policy limits. The court disagrees with Continental's interpretation; it is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language in § 8.3. E.2d 1133 (2003) (discussing targeted tender doctrine under Illinois law). Second, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of $46 million and the Trust was funded with $16 million, $11.5 million of which came from the Settling Insurers.

Nevertheless, Continental suggests that if the court finds the Plan is ambiguous, Continental will provide extrinsic a) The Trust is "required" as a "condition precedent to recovering against Continental with respect to any trust claim," to tender to Continental ... Now, on the other hand, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of $46 million and the Insurance Fund initially held $16 million from which to make pro rata payments on these Allowed Claims. Based on this interpretation, Continental declined to respond to any Tendered Claim on its merits. The delay benefits only Continental and burdens the Trust and its beneficiaries.

Continental argues that the Trust has to assign to Continental only that portion of each Tendered Claim for which Continental would have financial responsibility under a post hoc equitable contribution action. Accordingly, Continental was required to accept or reject the Trust's Proposals as the Plan provides. Second, giving "allocate" an insurance-specific meaning—if there is one—does not lead to the conclusion Continental urges. Accordingly, an "allocated percentage of 100%" of the liquidated value of an Allowed Claim is no different than an "all sums allocation." Third, use of the word "tender" in § 8.3 does not show that an insurance-specific meaning must be given to the word "allocate." As it is used in § 8.3 of the Plan, "tender" simply means the Trust will present a Proposal for the payment of certain Allowed Claims—based on the Trust's contention as to the proper amount Continental must pay. Based on the foregoing, the Trust's interpretation of § 8.3 is the appropriate one. E.2d 150 (1987), each primary insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay "all sums" on covered claims that trigger its policies. E.2d 680 (1980) (finding claim for declaratory relief for contribution stated). In order for a settling insurer to recover from another insurer under an equitable contribution theory, the settling insurer must prove (1) all facts necessary to the claimant's recovery against the insured; (2) the reasonableness of the amount paid to the insured; and (3) an identity between the policies as to parties and insurable interests and risks. There are 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims with a liquidated value of $38.1 million.

||

Frank, Law Offices of Frank and Gecker, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Tittmann, Robert Whitney, Edison, Mc Dowell & Hetherington LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendant. Bankruptcy Judge (the "Trustee" and the "Trust"), filed his First Amended Complaint against Continental Casualty Company ("Continental"). The Summary Judgment Motion has been fully briefed. Sections 9.1–9.3 of the Plan incorporated the Settlements. The stipulation states that the parties believe that "certain pages of the insuring agreements of the policies may be missing." The court notes that there are, in fact, missing pages but whether the missing pages are only the referenced pages of the "insuring agreements" is unknown. The record version of the 1987 policy does not include this language as it consists of seven almost completely illegible pages. Continental had an obligation to respond to the Trust's Proposals regarding the Tendered Claims as provided by § 8.3 of the Plan. In insurance law, "the right to contribution is an equitable principle arising among co-insurers which permits one who has paid the entire loss to receive reimbursement from another insurer liable for the loss." , 82 Ill. Standing alone, this $14.9 million group of Non–Tendered Claims exhausts the remaining coverage under the Settling Insurers' policies. The word "tender" in § 8.3 does not have a technical meaning which it might have in another context, i.e., a coverage dispute. An "allocated percentage of 100%" is an allocation. Continental argues that § 8.3 of the Plan abrogates this rule and requires the Trust to perform a theoretical equitable contribution calculation for each Tendered Claim and its Proposals must necessarily employ some such allocation method—but excluding 100%—before Continental has any responsibility to respond to any Tendered Claim. Equitable contribution applies to policies that insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks. Continental argues that the "other insurance" clause in its policies supports its entitlement to contribution. Of these 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims, there are 1,037 claims with a liquidated value of $14.9 million that do not trigger Continental's policies. the allocated percentage of that liquidated value for which the liquidating trust contends Continental is responsible; b) That [the phrase] "allocated percentage" in § 8.3 of the Plan does not permit the Trust to seek the full liquidated value from Continental without allocating a percentage also to the trust fund received from other primary insurers;c) Continental owes no recovery to the Trust with respect to any Trust Claim absent an allocated percentage proposed to Continental;d) The Trustee did not comply with the above referenced tender requirements set forth in § 8.3 of the Plan. Continental contends that the precise allocation method is not yet at issue but, somewhat inconsistently, also contends that the Trust had to perform an equitable contribution analysis for each Tendered Claim and make an allocation based on it in any Proposal sent to Continental. The Trust points out that the $7.9 million in Tendered Claims fully exhaust the $2.56 million available under Continental's policies under any conceivable allocation method. The Trust asserts that (1) a "time on the risk" allocation method would impose at least a 10.7% liability on Continental based on its three years of coverage so its share of the Allowed Claims would exceed its $2.56 million policy limits by at least $1.5 million; (2) a "pro rata by limits" allocation method would impose a liability of 18% of the policies issued by the solvent insurers which also exceeds Continental's policy limits. The court disagrees with Continental's interpretation; it is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language in § 8.3. E.2d 1133 (2003) (discussing targeted tender doctrine under Illinois law). Second, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of $46 million and the Trust was funded with $16 million, $11.5 million of which came from the Settling Insurers. Nevertheless, Continental suggests that if the court finds the Plan is ambiguous, Continental will provide extrinsic a) The Trust is "required" as a "condition precedent to recovering against Continental with respect to any trust claim," to tender to Continental ... Now, on the other hand, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of $46 million and the Insurance Fund initially held $16 million from which to make pro rata payments on these Allowed Claims. Based on this interpretation, Continental declined to respond to any Tendered Claim on its merits. The delay benefits only Continental and burdens the Trust and its beneficiaries. Continental argues that the Trust has to assign to Continental only that portion of each Tendered Claim for which Continental would have financial responsibility under a post hoc equitable contribution action. Accordingly, Continental was required to accept or reject the Trust's Proposals as the Plan provides. Second, giving "allocate" an insurance-specific meaning—if there is one—does not lead to the conclusion Continental urges. Accordingly, an "allocated percentage of 100%" of the liquidated value of an Allowed Claim is no different than an "all sums allocation." Third, use of the word "tender" in § 8.3 does not show that an insurance-specific meaning must be given to the word "allocate." As it is used in § 8.3 of the Plan, "tender" simply means the Trust will present a Proposal for the payment of certain Allowed Claims—based on the Trust's contention as to the proper amount Continental must pay. Based on the foregoing, the Trust's interpretation of § 8.3 is the appropriate one. E.2d 150 (1987), each primary insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay "all sums" on covered claims that trigger its policies. E.2d 680 (1980) (finding claim for declaratory relief for contribution stated). In order for a settling insurer to recover from another insurer under an equitable contribution theory, the settling insurer must prove (1) all facts necessary to the claimant's recovery against the insured; (2) the reasonableness of the amount paid to the insured; and (3) an identity between the policies as to parties and insurable interests and risks. There are 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims with a liquidated value of $38.1 million.

.5 million; (2) a "pro rata by limits" allocation method would impose a liability of 18% of the policies issued by the solvent insurers which also exceeds Continental's policy limits. The court disagrees with Continental's interpretation; it is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language in § 8.3. E.2d 1133 (2003) (discussing targeted tender doctrine under Illinois law). Second, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of million and the Trust was funded with million, .5 million of which came from the Settling Insurers. Nevertheless, Continental suggests that if the court finds the Plan is ambiguous, Continental will provide extrinsic a) The Trust is "required" as a "condition precedent to recovering against Continental with respect to any trust claim," to tender to Continental ... Now, on the other hand, there are Allowed Claims with a liquidated value of million and the Insurance Fund initially held million from which to make pro rata payments on these Allowed Claims. Based on this interpretation, Continental declined to respond to any Tendered Claim on its merits. The delay benefits only Continental and burdens the Trust and its beneficiaries. Continental argues that the Trust has to assign to Continental only that portion of each Tendered Claim for which Continental would have financial responsibility under a post hoc equitable contribution action. Accordingly, Continental was required to accept or reject the Trust's Proposals as the Plan provides. Second, giving "allocate" an insurance-specific meaning—if there is one—does not lead to the conclusion Continental urges. Accordingly, an "allocated percentage of 100%" of the liquidated value of an Allowed Claim is no different than an "all sums allocation." Third, use of the word "tender" in § 8.3 does not show that an insurance-specific meaning must be given to the word "allocate." As it is used in § 8.3 of the Plan, "tender" simply means the Trust will present a Proposal for the payment of certain Allowed Claims—based on the Trust's contention as to the proper amount Continental must pay. Based on the foregoing, the Trust's interpretation of § 8.3 is the appropriate one. E.2d 150 (1987), each primary insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay "all sums" on covered claims that trigger its policies. E.2d 680 (1980) (finding claim for declaratory relief for contribution stated). In order for a settling insurer to recover from another insurer under an equitable contribution theory, the settling insurer must prove (1) all facts necessary to the claimant's recovery against the insured; (2) the reasonableness of the amount paid to the insured; and (3) an identity between the policies as to parties and insurable interests and risks. There are 12,365 Non–Tendered Claims with a liquidated value of .1 million.

  1. Free cam chat without cradit card 24-Dec-2019 06:50

    Price: before September 1st and September 1st and later.

  2. mindless behavior dating quiz 18-Dec-2019 17:32

    Chat Roulette - is the most popular video chat, which is built on the principle of roulette: You never know who will be connected when you click "Next." Chat Roulette allows you to chat via webcam, chat with a random companion through the microphone, to correspond with the keyboard.

  3. Webcam chat live privat sefree nude women on dating sites 31-Dec-2019 05:35

    I am sad to look at people who kill their own kind....