Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0751-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NIPPONKOA INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Defendants-Appellants. Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America, Sompo Japan Insurance Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Defendants-Appellants.
    
    Nos. 09-4866-cv, 09-4268-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 29, 2010.
    James R. Lloyd, III (Paul D. Keenan, on the brief), Keenan Cohen & Howard P.C., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.
    David T. Maloof (Thomas M. Eagan, on the brief), Maloof, Browne & Eagan LLC, Rye, New York, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is instructed to amend the official caption in these cases to conform to the listings of the parties above.
    
    
      
       Honorable Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in these two related cases based on what was then binding Second Circuit precedent. The parties agree that the Supreme Court, in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2433, 177 L.Ed.2d 424 (2010), has abrogated the precedent upon which the district court relied. See also Royal & Sun Alliance Ins., PLC v. Ocean World Lines, Inc., 612 F.3d 138, 140 (2d Cir.2010). The plaintiffs-appellees have raised further grounds they claim would support the judgment regardless of Regalr-Beloit, but concede that they did not present these grounds below because of the state of the law at the time. The parties therefore have agreed that we should decline to reach these issues so that the district court may have the first opportunity to address them on remand.

The judgment is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.