1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-30-1996

Younis Bros & Co Inc v. Cigna Worldwide Ins

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-1905

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Younis Bros & Co Inc v. Cigna Worldwide Ins" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 132.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/132
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 

 No. 95-1905 

 

 

 YOUNIS BROS. AND CO., INC. 

 

 V. 

 

 CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 

 

 THE ABI JAOUDI AND AZAR TRADING CORPORATION 

 

 V. 

 

CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY; WHISTONDALE & PARTNERS, INC., 

 aka WHISTONDALE & PARTNERS, P.L.C.; GALLAGHER PLUMER, LTD.; 

 EAGLE STAR INSURANCE CO. LTD.; CNA REINSURANCE OF LONDON LTD.; 

 ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, (UK Ltd.); 

 ORION INSURANCE CO. PLC.; NRG FENCHURCH INSURANCE CO. LTD.; 

 U A P INS. CO.; GENERALI INS. CO.; SIRIUS (UK) INSURANCE PLC; 

 YASUDA TRUST EUROPE LTD.; MUNICHRE GENERAL SERVICES LTD., 

 dba GREAT LANES RE-INSURANCE, LTD. (UK); COMMERCIAL UNION 

 ASSURANCE COMPANY PLC; CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. (UK) LTD., 

 dba CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. OF LONDON, LTD.; 

 STAR ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.; ROYAL RE-INSURANCE CO. LTD.; 

 HIR UK LTD. 

 

 Younis Bros. & Co., Inc. and The Abi Jaoudi 

 and Azar Trading Corporation, Appellants 

 

 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil Nos. 91-06784, 91-06785) 

 

 

 Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 on June 4, 1996 

 

 Before: COWEN, NYGAARD and LEWIS, Circuit Judges 

 (Opinion Filed July 30, 1996) 

 JOHN J. SEEHOUSEN 

 P.O. BOX 795

 LANGHORNE, PA 19047-0795 

 Attorney for Appellants 
 ELIZABETH CHAMBERS 

 DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE 

 STEPHEN A. COZEN 

 DOUGLAS R. WIDIN 

 COZEN & O'CONNOR 

 THE ATRIUM 

 1900 MARKET STREET 

 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 

 Attorneys for Appellees 

 

 

 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 Younis Brothers & Company and the Abi Jaoudi and Azar 

Trading Corporation appeal the judgment as a matter of law in 

favor of appellee, CIGNA Worldwide Insurance Company. The 

district court concluded that the "war risk exclusion" contained 

in appellants' insurance policies precluded claims arising from 

the June 1990 Liberian insurrection. We will affirm. 

 I. 

 The district court's opinion details the facts 

underlying this appeal. See Younis Bros. & Co. v. CIGNA 

Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F.Supp. 1385, 1388-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 

We need not repeat them except to note that appellants owned 

businesses and properties in Liberia, which, between June and 

October 1990, were damaged by looting and fire. During this time 

Charles Taylor and Prince Johnson led separate armies against the 

Liberian government. Appellants' holdings were insured under 

CIGNA policies containing war risk exclusions for losses caused 

by, inter alia, war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion or 

revolution. CIGNA carried the burden of establishing that the 

situation within Liberia fell within the war risk exclusions. 

 Following a jury trial on appellants' declaratory 

judgment action, the district court entered judgment as a matter 

of law in favor of CIGNA, holding that Liberia experienced an 

insurrection during the relevant time period. We must decide 

whether the record contains that minimum quantum of evidence from 

which a jury might reasonably afford relief. See, e.g., Patzig 

v. O'Neil, 577 F.2d 841, 846 (3d Cir. 1978). We conclude that a 

state of insurrection existed in Liberia during the relevant time 

period; and, that the insurrection caused appellants' losses. 

 II. 

 "Insurrection" is the most basic form of civil unrest, 

the definition of which encompasses all other forms of civil 

commotion addressed by the war risk exclusions in appellants' 

policies. See Pan Am. World Air., Inc. v. AETNA Casualty & Sur. 

Co., 505 F.2d 980, 1017 (2d Cir. 1974). We adopt the definition 

of "insurrection" articulated by the First Circuit Court of 

Appeals in Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Davila, 212 F.2d 731, 736 

(1st Cir. 1954): 
 [T]o constitute an insurrection or rebellion 

 within the meaning of these policies, there 

 must have been a movement accompanied by 

 action specifically intended to overthrow the 

 constituted government and to take possession 

 of the inherent powers thereof. 

Accord Pan Am., 505 F.2d at 1017-1019 (defining insurrection as 

(1) a violent uprising by a group or movement (2) acting for the 

specific purpose of overthrowing the government and seizing its 

powers). 

 No one questions that Charles Taylor and Prince Johnson 

led their respective armies in a violent uprising. The record 

further reveals that one or both of them intended to overthrow 

the government and seize power. Numerous witnesses testified as 

to objective manifestations of that intent, while there is not a 

scintilla of evidence to suggest some other goal. The evidence 

permits no interpretation other than that, from June to October 

1990, when appellants' losses occurred, the events in Liberia 

constituted an insurrection within the meaning of the war risk 

exclusion clauses in the CIGNA policies. 

 Close review of the record further reveals that the 

district court properly ruled that the insurrection caused 

appellants' losses within the meaning of the CIGNA policies. 

As the district court noted, the total breakdown of civil 

authority caused by the insurrection compounded the looting and 

other damage. Numerous witnesses testified that the breakdown of 

civil authority, the looting and the damage were caused by the 

insurrection, and that soldiers under Taylor and Johnson 

participated in the looting and destruction. In contrast, there 

is no evidence that the damage caused to appellants' businesses 

resulted from anything other than the insurrection. 

 III. 

 The district court correctly entered judgment as a 

matter of law that an insurrection both existed in Liberia during 

the relevant time period and caused the losses suffered by 

appellants. Accordingly, we will affirm.