### 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-30-1996 

# Y ouni s B r o s & C o I nc v

. C i g n a W orldwide I ns

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 95-1905

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Y ouni s B r os & C o I nc v

. C i gn a W orldw ide I n s " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 132. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/132UNITED 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 CORPORATI ON

V.

CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY; WHISTONDALE & PA RTNERS, INC., aka WHISTONDALE & PARTNERS, P.L.C.; GALLAGHER PLU MER, LTD.; EAGLE STAR INSURANCE CO. LTD.; CNA REINSURANCE OF LONDON LTD.; ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, (U K Ltd.); ORION INSURANCE CO. PLC.; NRG FENCHURCH INSURANCE CO. LTD.; U A P INS. CO.; GENERALI INS. CO.; SIRIUS (UK) INS URANCE PLC; YASUDA TRUST EUROPE LTD.; MUNICHRE GENERAL SERVI CES LTD., dba GREAT LANES RE-INSURANCE, LTD. (UK); COMMERC IAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY PLC; CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. (UK) LTD., dba CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. OF LONDON, L TD.; STAR ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.; ROYAL RE-INSURANCE CO. LTD.; HIR UK LTD.

Younis Bros. & Co., Inc. and The Abi Jaou di and Azar Trading Corporation, Appellant s

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANI A (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 J udges

(Opinion Filed July 30, 1996)

JOHN J. SEEH OUSEN P.O. BOX 795 LANGHORNE, P A 19047-0795 Attorney for AppellantsELIZABETH CH AMBERS

DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE STEPHEN A. C OZEN DOUGLAS R. W IDIN COZEN & O'CO NNOR THE ATRIUM 1900 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA , PA 19103 Attorneys fo r Appellees

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Younis Brothers & Company and the Abi Jaou di and Azar Trading Corporation appeal the judgment as a matter of law in favor of appellee, CIGNA Worldwide Insurance Compan y. The district court concluded that the "war risk exclusi on" contained in appellants' insurance policies precluded claims arising from the June 1990 Liberian insurrection. We will affir m. I. The district court's opinion details the f acts 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 appella nts owned businesses and properties in Liberia, which, betwee n June and October 1990, were damaged by looting and fire. Du ring this time Charles Taylor and Prince Johnson led separate armi es against the Liberian government. Appellants' holdings were ins ured under CIGNA policies containing war risk exclusions for l osses caused by, inter alia, war, civil war, insurrection, rebel lion or revolution. CIGNA carried the burden of establishi ng that the situation within Liberia fell within the war risk e xclusions. Following a jury trial on appellants' decl aratory judgment action, the district court entered judgmen t as a matter of law in favor of CIGNA, holding that Liberia expe rienced an insurrection during the relevant time period. We m ust 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 co nclude that a state of insurrection existed in Liberia during the relevant time period; and, that the insurrection caused appellant s' losses.
II. "Insurrection" is the most basic form of c ivil unrest, the definition of which encompasses all other forms of civil commotion addressed by the war risk exclusions in a ppellants' policies. See Pan Am. World Air., Inc. v. AETNA Ca sualty & Sur. Co., 505 F.2d 980, 1017 (2d Cir. 1974). We adopt t he definition of "insurrection" articulated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Davila, 212 F.2 d 731, 736 (1st Cir. 1954):[T]o constitute an insurrection or rebelli on

within the meaning of these policies, ther e must have been a movement accompanied by action specifically intended to overthrow the constituted government and to take possess ion of the inherent powers thereof.

Accord Pan Am., 505 F.2d at 1017-1019 (defining ins urrection as (1) a violent uprising by a group or movement (2) a cting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the government and seizing its powers). No one questions that Charles Taylor and P rince Johnson led their respective armies in a violent uprising. The record further reveals that one or both of them intended t o overthrow the government and seize power. Numerous witnesses testified as to objective manifestations of that intent, while t here is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest some other goal. The evidence permits no interpretation other than that, from Jun e to October 1990, when appellants' losses occurred, the events in Liberia constituted an insurrection within the meaning of t he 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 th e breakdown of civil authority, the looting and the damage were ca used by the insurrection, and that soldiers under Taylor and Jo hnson participated in the looting and destruction. In co ntrast, there is no evidence that the damage caused to appellants ' businesses resulted from anything other than the insurrection.
III. The district court correctly entered judgm ent as a matter of law that an insurrection both existed in Liberia during the relevant time period and caused the losses suff ered by appellants. Accordingly, we will affirm.