Case ID: f-appx_560/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, as successor in trust to Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-1551.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 25, 2014.
    
      Robert Lewin, Stroock & Stroock & La-van LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Everett J. Cygal (David S. Spector, Catherine M. Masters, on the brief), Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, CHRISTINA REISS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Arrowood Indemnity Co., as successor to Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut, appeals an order denying its motion for judgment and contempt against Trustmark Insurance Co. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history (as implausible as that history may be), and the issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g., Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir.2007); Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir.1995). Upon such review, we conclude that Arrowood’s motion was appropriately denied, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned March 29, 2013 Memorandum of Decision. See Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Trustmark Ins. Co., 938 F.Supp.2d 267 (D.Conn.2013).

We have considered all of Arrowood’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The order of the district court is hereby affirmed.