13-4201-cv

Seneca Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

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 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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 16th 4 day of October, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 13-4201-cv

16

17 EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY, 

18 Defendant-Appellee.

19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

20

21 FOR APPELLANT: BARRY SARETSKY, Saretsky Katz

22 Dranoff & Glass, LLP, New York,

23 New York.

24

25 FOR APPELLEE: DAVID L. PITCHFORD (with Daniel

26 S. Brower on the brief),

27 Pitchford Law Group LLC, New

28 York, New York.

1
1

2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

3 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

6 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

7 AFFIRMED. 

8

9 Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. (“Seneca”) appeals from

10 the judgment of the United States District Court for the

11 Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.), granting

12 summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Everest

13 Reinsurance Company (“Everest Re”). Seneca provided $5

14 million in liability insurance to the Kentucky Lottery

15 Corporation (“KLC”), with a $5 million self-insured

16 retention. When judgments were rendered against KLC in an

17 action by two former employees, Seneca paid and in turn

18 sought coverage from Everest Re, which denied coverage. 

19

20 The district court ruled that the interest amounts

21 included in the judgments entered against KLC were properly

22 considered “interest on a judgment,” which under the

23 reinsurance terms is not a covered loss. For that reason,

24 the $5 million loss that triggers Everest Re’s obligation to

25 pay had not been reached. We assume the parties’

26 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

27 history, and the issues presented for review. 

28

29 “We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.” 

30 ReAmerica, S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank Int’l, 577 F.3d 102, 105

31 (2d Cir. 2009). Upon such review, we find that the district

32 court properly granted summary judgment to Everest Re.

33

34 For the reasons stated in the Decision and Order of the

35 district court, and finding no merit in Seneca’s other

36 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district

37 court.

38

39 FOR THE COURT:

40 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

41

2