13-4201-cv Seneca Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A**  **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 16 th** **day of October, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 7 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 13-4201-cv** 15 16 **EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY,** 17 **Defendant-Appellee**

**.** 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 19 20 **FOR APPELLANT:** BARRY SARETSKY, Saretsky Katz 21 Dranoff & Glass, LLP, New York, 22 New York. 23 24 **FOR APPELLEE:** DAVID L. PITCHFORD (withDaniel 25 S. Brower on the brief ), 26 Pitchford Law Group LLC, New 27 York, New York. 28

11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J. ). 3 4 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 5 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 6 **AFFIRMED**

. 7 8 Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. (“Seneca”) appeals from 9 the judgment of the United States District Court for the 10 Southern District of New York (Forrest, J. ), granting 11 summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Everest 12 Reinsurance Company(“Everest Re”). Seneca provided $5 13 million in liability insurance to the Kentucky Lottery 14 Corporation (“KLC”), with a $5 million self-insured 15 retention. When judgments were rendered against KLC in an 16 action by two former employees, Seneca paid and in turn 17 sought coverage from Everest Re, which denied coverage. 18 19 The district court ruled that the interest amounts 20 included in the judgments entered against KLC were properly 21 considered “interest on a judgment,” which under the 22 reinsurance terms is not a covered loss. For that reason, 23 the $5 million loss that triggers Everest Re’s obligation to 24 pay had not been reached. We assume the parties’ 25 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 26 history, and the issues presented for review. 27 28 “We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.” 29 ReAmerica, S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank Int’l , 577 F.3d 102, 105 30 (2d Cir. 2009) . Upon such review, we find that the district 31 court properly granted summary judgment to Everest Re. 32 33 For the reasons stated in the Decision and Order of the 34 district court, and finding no merit in Seneca’s other 35 arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the district 36 court. 37 38 FOR THE COURT: 39 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 40 41

2