13-1551 Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Trustmark Insurance 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 25 th** **day of March, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 **CHRISTINA REISS,** 9 **District Judge**
**.** * 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, as** 13 **successor in trust to FIRE AND** 14 **CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF** 15 **CONNECTICUT,** 16 17 **Petitioner-Appellant ,**  18 19 **-v.- No. 13-1551** 20 21 **TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY,** 22 23 **Respondent-Appellee**
**.** 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 25

* Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** ROBERT LEWIN, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 1 LLP, New York, NY. 2 3 **FOR APPELLEE:** EVERETT J. CYGAL (David S. Spector, 4 Catherine M. Masters, on the brief ), 5 Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL. 6 7 Appeal from an order of the United States District 8 Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J. ). 9 10 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 11 **AND DECREED**that the order of the district court be 12 **AFFIRMED**

. 13 14 Arrowood Indemnity Co., as successor to Fire and 15 Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut, appeals an order 16 denying its motion for judgment and contempt against 17 Trustmark Insurance Co. We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts, the procedural history (as 19 implausible as that history may be), and the issues on 20 appeal. 21 22 We review the district court’s legal conclusions de 23
novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g. , 24 Zeiler v. Deitsch , 500 F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir. 2007); Huber 25 v. Marine Midland Bank , 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995). Upon 26 such review, we conclude that Arrowood’s motion was 27 appropriately denied, substantially for the reasons set 28 forth in the district court’s well-reasoned March 29, 2013 29 Memorandum of Decision. See Arrowood Indem. Co. v. 30 Trustmark Ins. Co. , 938 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2013). 31 32 We have considered all of Arrowood’s remaining 33 arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The 34 order of the district court is hereby affirmed. 35 36 FOR THE COURT: 37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 38

2