Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05503/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05503-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYD'S, LONDON,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05503-RS 

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER 

BRIEFING

In support of its pending motion to dismiss, defendant relies in part on language set out in 

paragraph 13 of the “General Policy Conditions” that “[n]o monies payable or collectible from 

such other insurance shall accrue to the Loss Fund.” At oral argument, defendant responded to a 

question regarding the potential effect of Endorsement 2 by asserting that endorsement related to a 

part of the policy form not at issue in this litigation. Indeed, Endorsement 2 explicitly states that 

the policy “does not provide coverage under PART II EXCESS LOSS FUND PROTECTION of 

the policy wording.” That endorsement appears consistent with the schedule on page 3 of the 

policy, which has the entry “NOT COVERED” next to “LOSS FUND,” and with page 8 of the 

policy, which has the entry “NOT APPLICABLE” next to “EXCESS LOSS FUND 

PROTECTION LIMIT.” It is abundantly clear, therefore, that Part II of the policy form is not part 

of the policy as issued to the San Francisco Unified School District and that there no claims or 

issues in this litigation relating to Part II of the form. Neither plaintiff nor defendant contends

otherwise.

Case 3:15-cv-05503-RS Document 35 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-05503-RS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Endorsement 2, however, also explicitly states, “[i]t is further understood and agreed that 

any reference made to PART II EXCESS LOSS FUND PROTECTION and to the ASSSURED’S 

Loss Fund within the policy wording shall be deemed to be deleted.” (underscoring added).

As a result, it is unclear whether the language in paragraph 13 of the “General Policy Conditions”

that “[n]o monies payable or collectible from such other insurance shall accrue to the Loss Fund”

can properly be considered to be part of the policy as issued. The parties’ agreement at oral 

argument that Endorsement 2 deleted any coverage under Part II does not address the issue, 

because the question is whether the term “Loss Fund” has any meaning, definition, or relevance 

under Part I of the policy.

Accordingly, within 7 days of the date of this order, defendant shall file a supplemental 

brief, not to exceed 5 pages, addressing whether the language in paragraph 13 of the General 

Policy Conditions on which it relies can be deemed to be part of the policy notwithstanding 

Endorsement 2, and if so, why and how. Within 7 days thereafter, plaintiff may file a response, 

also not to exceed 5 pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05503-RS Document 35 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 2