(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA 

v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 05–1429. Argued January 16, 2007—Decided March 20, 2007 

After respondent (PG&E) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, petitioner

(Travelers), which had previously issued a surety bond to guarantee 

PG&E’s payment of state workers’ compensation benefits, asserted a

claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself should PG&E default 

on the benefits. With the Bankruptcy Court’s approval, PG&E 

agreed to insert language into its reorganization plan and disclosure 

statement to protect Travelers in case of such a default. Additional 

litigation over the negotiated language nevertheless ensued and was 

ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation stating, inter 

alia, that Travelers could assert a general unsecured claim for attorney’s fees, which were authorized in the parties’ original indemnity 

agreements. When Travelers filed an amended claim for such fees, 

PG&E objected based on the rule the Ninth Circuit adopted in its 

prior Fobian decision that where the litigated issues involve not basic

contract enforcement questions, but issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, attorney’s fees generally will not be awarded. The Bankruptcy Court rejected Travelers’ claim on that basis, and the District 

Court and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: 

1. Federal bankruptcy law does not disallow contract-based claims 

for attorney’s fees based solely on the fact that the fees were incurred 

litigating bankruptcy law issues. Because the Fobian rule finds no 

support in federal bankruptcy law, the Ninth Circuit erred in disallowing Travelers’ claim. Pp. 4–12.

(a) The American rule that “the prevailing litigant is ordinarily 

not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser,” Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247, 
2 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Syllabus 

may be overcome by, inter alia, an “enforceable contract” allocating 

such fees, Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 

U. S. 714, 717. A contract allocating attorney’s fees that is enforceable under substantive, nonbankruptcy law is allowable in bankruptcy except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. Cf. 

Security Mortgage Co. v. Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154. The Code does 

not do so here. Pp. 4–5.

(b) Under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court “shall allow” a creditor’s claim “except to the extent that” the claim implicates

any of nine enumerated exceptions. 11 U. S. C. §502(b). Because 

Travelers’ attorney’s fees claim has nothing to do with the exceptions

set forth in §§502(b)(2)–(9), it must be allowed unless it is unenforceable under §502(b)(1), which disallows any claim that is “unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is 

contingent or unmatured.” Pp. 5–6.

(c) Section 502(b)(1) is most naturally understood to provide that,

with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available outside of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy. This 

reading is consistent not only with the plain statutory text, but also

with the settled principle that “[c]reditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the first instance from the underlying substantive law

creating the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary

provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U. S. 15, 20. That principle requires bankruptcy courts to 

consult state law in determining the validity of most claims. See 

ibid. Thus, when the Code uses the word “claim”—i.e., a “right to 

payment,” §101(5)(A)—it is usually referring to a right to payment 

recognized under state law, “[u]nless some federal interest requires a

different result,” Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 55. Pp. 6–7.

(d) The Fobian rule finds no support in §502 or elsewhere in federal bankruptcy law. The Fobian court did not identify any Code provision as presenting such support, but instead cited three of its own 

prior decisions, none of which identified any basis for disallowing a 

contractual claim for attorney’s fees. Nor did the court have occasion 

to do so; in each of those cases, the attorney’s fees claim failed as a 

matter of state law. The absence of such textual support is fatal for 

the Fobian rule. See FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications 

Inc., 537 U. S. 293, 302. In light of §502(b)(1)’s broad, permissive

scope, and the Court’s prior recognition that “the character of [a contractual] obligation to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in bankruptcy,” it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule 

cannot stand. Security Mortgage, supra, at 154. Pp. 7–10. 

2. The Court expresses no opinion as to PG&E’s arguments that 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Syllabus 

unsecured claims for contractual attorney’s fees, such as Travelers’, 

are categorically disallowed by §506(b), which expressly authorizes 

such fees “[t]o the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by

property [whose] value [exceeds] the amount of such claim,” and that 

such disallowance is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Code’s structure

and purpose, as examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bankruptcy law. The Court ordinarily does not consider arguments, such

as these, that were neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168–169, and PG&E 

has not identified any circumstances warranting an exception to that 

rule here. PG&E’s insistence that its arguments are “fairly included” 

within the question presented in the certiorari petition is not persuasive. Pp. 10–12. 

167 Fed. Appx. 593, vacated and remanded. 

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 05–1429 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF

AMERICA, PETITIONER v. PACIFIC GAS AND 

ELECTRIC COMPANY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[March 20, 2007] 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. 

We are asked to consider whether federal bankruptcy

law precludes an unsecured creditor from recovering 

attorney’s fees authorized by a prepetition contract and 

incurred in postpetition litigation. The Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit held, based on a rule previously

adopted by that court, that such fees are categorically

prohibited—even where the contractual allocation of

attorney’s fees would be enforceable under applicable

nonbankruptcy law—to the extent the litigation involves 

issues of federal bankruptcy law. Because that rule finds 

no support in the Bankruptcy Code, we vacate and 

remand. 

I 

Respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)

filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in April

2001, 11 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., and continued thereafter to 

operate its business as a “debtor in possession.” §§1107(a),

1108. The bankruptcy filing caught the attention of petitioner Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (Travelers), 
2 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court

which had previously issued a $100 million surety bond on

PG&E’s behalf to the California Department of Industrial 

Relations, guaranteeing PG&E’s payment of state workers’ compensation benefits to injured employees.1 In 

connection with the bond, PG&E executed a series of 

indemnity agreements in favor of Travelers. The indemnity agreements provide that PG&E will be responsible for 

any loss Travelers might incur in connection with the 

bonds, including any attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing,

protecting, or litigating Travelers’ rights in connection

with those bonds. 

Although no default occurred, Travelers asserted a 

claim in the bankruptcy action to protect itself in case

PG&E defaulted on its workers’ compensation benefits at

some point in the future, requiring Travelers to make

payments under its bond. In response to Travelers’ claim,

and with the knowledge and approval of the Bankruptcy 

Court, PG&E agreed to insert language into its reorganization plan and disclosure statement to protect Travelers’ 

right to indemnity and subrogation in the event of a default by PG&E.

Travelers claims, however, that PG&E then unilaterally

altered the negotiated language in a way that substantially diminished the protection it had been seeking. 

According to Travelers, that development resulted in 

additional litigation, but Travelers and PG&E ultimately 

resolved the dispute by entering into a stipulation that 

—————— 

1California law required PG&E to provide workers’ compensation 

benefits for its employees by either (1) purchasing workers’ compensation insurance from a licensed provider of such insurance or (2) adopting a plan, with the State’s approval, to self-insure. PG&E chose the 

latter option, and was therefore required to post security with the State 

to ensure ongoing payment of mandatory workers’ compensation 

benefits. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §§3700, 3701 (West 2003). Travelers 

posted the required security by issuing a bond on PG&E’s behalf. The 

bond makes Travelers liable, up to $100 million, for workers’ compensation benefits in the event of a default by PG&E. 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

was later approved by the Bankruptcy Court. In addition 

to accommodating Travelers’ substantive concerns, the 

stipulation stated that Travelers “may assert its claim for 

attorneys’ fees under the [i]ndemnity [a]greements” (subject to PG&E’s right to object) as a general unsecured 

claim against PG&E. Brief for Petitioner 17. 

Travelers subsequently filed an amended proof of claim 

seeking to recover the attorney’s fees it incurred in connection with PG&E’s bankruptcy proceedings. PG&E 

objected, arguing that Travelers could not recover attorney’s fees incurred while litigating issues of bankruptcy 

law. 

The Bankruptcy Court agreed and rejected Travelers’ 

claim on that basis. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a–25a. Travelers appealed that ruling to the District Court. The 

District Court affirmed, relying on In re Fobian, 951 F. 2d 

1149 (CA9 1991), which held that “where the litigated 

issues involve not basic contract enforcement questions, 

but issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law, attorney’s

fees will not be awarded absent bad faith or harassment 

by the losing party,” id., at 1153. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 

10a, 17a. 

Travelers appealed again, and the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 167 Fed. Appx.

593 (2006). The panel acknowledged that, in at least some

circumstances, a “‘prevailing party in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to an award of attorney fees in

accordance with applicable state law . . . .’” Id., at 594 

(quoting In re Baroff, 105 F. 3d 439, 441 (CA9 1997)). The 

panel nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based on the 

Fobian rule, which it cited for the proposition that “attorney fees are not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating 

issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’” 167 Fed. 

Appx., at 594 (quoting Fobian, supra, at 1153). The panel

explained that, because the fees claimed by Travelers were

incurred litigating issues that were “governed entirely by 
4 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court

federal bankruptcy law,” Travelers’ claim necessarily

failed.2 167 Fed. Appx., at 594. 

Travelers sought review in this Court, noting a conflict

among the Courts of Appeals regarding the validity of the 

Fobian rule. Compare Fobian, supra, at 1153, with In re 

Shangra-La, Inc., 167 F. 3d 843, 848–849 (CA4 1999). We 

granted certiorari to resolve that conflict, 549 U. S. ___ 

(2006). 

II 

Under the American Rule, “the prevailing litigant is

ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee 

from the loser.” Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness 

Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975); see Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 490–491 (1880); Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 (1796). This default rule can, of course, 

be overcome by statute. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. 

Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717 (1967). It can also 

be overcome by an “enforceable contract” allocating attorney’s fees. Ibid. 

In a case governed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, we

observed that “[t]he character of [a contractual] obligation 

to pay attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it

in bankruptcy, either as a provable claim or by way of a

lien upon specific property.” Security Mortgage Co. v. 

Powers, 278 U. S. 149, 154 (1928). Similarly, under the

terms of the current Bankruptcy Code, it remains true 

that an otherwise enforceable contract allocating attorney’s fees (i.e., one that is enforceable under substantive, 

nonbankruptcy law) is allowable in bankruptcy except 

—————— 

2The Court of Appeals incorporated by reference the reasoning employed in In re DeRoche, 434 F. 3d 1188 (CA9 2006), which was decided

by the same panel that decided this case. 167 Fed. Appx., at 593. 

Although the DeRoche opinion is longer than its counterpart in this 

case, it adds very little to the panel’s explanation of the Fobian rule. 

See DeRoche, supra, at 1190–1192. 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. See 4 

Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.04[3][a], p. 506–118 (rev. 

15th ed. 2006) (hereinafter Collier). 

This case requires us to consider whether the Bankruptcy Code disallows contract-based claims for attorney’s 

fees based solely on the fact that the fees at issue were 

incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law. We conclude 

that it does not. 

A 

When a debtor declares bankruptcy, each of its creditors

is entitled to file a proof of claim—i.e., a document providing proof of a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C. §101(5)(A)—

against the debtor’s estate. Once a proof of claim has been

filed, the court must determine whether the claim is “allowed” under §502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code: “A claim or 

interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 . . . is 

deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.” 

But even where a party in interest objects, the court

“shall allow” the claim “except to the extent that” the 

claim implicates any of the nine exceptions enumerated in 

§502(b). Ibid. Those exceptions apply where the claim at 

issue is “unenforceable against the debtor . . . under any 

agreement or applicable law,” §502(b)(1); “is for unmatured interest,” §502(b)(2); “is for [property tax that]

exceeds the value of the [estate’s] interest” in the property,

§502(b)(3); “is for services of an insider or attorney of the 

debtor” and “exceeds the reasonable value of such services,” §502(b)(4); is for unmatured debt on certain alimony and child support obligations, §502(b)(5); is for 

certain “damages resulting from the termination” of a

lease or employment contract, §§502(b)(6) and (7); “results

from a reduction, due to late payment, in the amount of

. . . credit available to the debtor in connection with an 

employment tax on wages, salaries, or commissions earned 

from the debtor,” §502(b)(8); or was brought to the court’s 
6 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court

attention through an untimely proof of claim, §502(b)(9). 

Travelers’ claim for attorney’s fees has nothing to do

with property tax, child support or alimony, services provided by an attorney of the debtor, damages resulting from

the termination of a lease or employment contract, or the 

late payment of any employment tax. See §§502(b)(2)–(8).

Nor does it appear that the proof of claim was untimely. 

See §502(b)(9). Thus, Travelers’ claim must be allowed 

under §502(b) unless it is unenforceable within the meaning of §502(b)(1). 

B 

Section 502(b)(1) disallows any claim that is “unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under

any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than 

because such claim is contingent or unmatured.” This 

provision is most naturally understood to provide that, 

with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is 

available outside of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy. See 4 Collier ¶ 502.03[2][b], at 502–22

(explaining that §502(b)(1) is generally understood to

“make available to the trustee any defense” available to 

the debtor “under applicable nonbankruptcy law”—i.e., 

any defense that the debtor “could have interposed, absent 

bankruptcy, in a suit on the [same substantive] claim by

the creditor”). 

This reading of §502(b)(1) is consistent not only with the

plain statutory text, but also with the settled principle 

that “[c]reditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the

first instance from the underlying substantive law creating the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying or 

contrary provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Raleigh v. 

Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U. S. 15, 20 (2000). That 

principle requires bankruptcy courts to consult state law

in determining the validity of most claims. See ibid. 

Indeed, we have long recognized that the “‘basic federal 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

rule’ in bankruptcy is that state law governs the substance 

of claims, Congress having ‘generally left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate 

to state law.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Butner v. United States, 440 

U. S. 48, 57, 54 (1979); citation omitted). Accordingly, 

when the Bankruptcy Code uses the word “claim”—which

the Code itself defines as a “right to payment,” 11 U. S. C.

§101(5)(A)—it is usually referring to a right to payment 

recognized under state law. As we stated in Butner, 

“[p]roperty interests are created and defined by state law,”

and “[u]nless some federal interest requires a different 

result, there is no reason why such interests should be

analyzed differently simply because an interested party is

involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.” 440 U. S., at 55; 

accord, Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 

329 U. S. 156, 161 (1946) (“What claims of creditors are 

valid and subsisting obligations against the bankrupt at

the time a petition in bankruptcy is filed is a question

which, in the absence of overruling federal law, is to be 

determined by reference to state law”). 

C 

In rejecting Travelers’ claim for contractual attorney’s

fees, the Court of Appeals did not conclude that the claim

was “unenforceable” under §502(b)(1) as a matter of applicable nonbankruptcy law. Nor did it conclude that Travelers’ claim was rendered unenforceable by any provision of

the Bankruptcy Code. To the contrary, the court acknowledged that, in at least some circumstances, a “ ‘prevailing 

party in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to an

award of attorney fees in accordance with applicable state 

law . . . .’” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting Baroff, 105 

F. 3d, at 441).

The court nevertheless rejected Travelers’ claim based 

solely on a rule of that court’s own creation—the so-called 

Fobian rule—which dictates that “attorney fees are not 
8 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court

recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to 

federal bankruptcy law.’” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594 (quoting 

Fobian, 951 F. 2d, at 1153). The court explained that,

because the fees claimed by Travelers were incurred litigating issues that were “governed entirely by federal 

bankruptcy law,” 167 Fed. Appx., at 594, Travelers’ claim

necessarily failed.

The Fobian rule finds no support in the Bankruptcy

Code, either in §502 or elsewhere. In Fobian, the court did 

not identify any provision of the Bankruptcy Code as 

providing support for the new rule. See 951 F. 2d, at 1153. 

Instead, the court cited three of its own prior decisions, 

In re Johnson, 756 F. 2d 738 (1985); In re Coast Trading 

Co., 744 F. 2d 686 (1984); and In re Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d 

908 (1980) (per curium). Significantly, in none of those

cases did the court identify any basis for disallowing a

contractual claim for attorney’s fees incurred litigating

issues of federal bankruptcy law. Nor did the court have 

occasion to do so; in each of those cases, the claim for 

attorney’s fees failed as a matter of state law. See Johnson, supra, at 741–742; Coast Trading, supra, at 693; 

Fulwiler, supra, at 910.3 

The absence of textual support is fatal for the Fobian 

rule. Consistent with our prior statements regarding 

—————— 

3 In Johnson, the debtor sought attorney’s fees after the creditor unsuccessfully requested relief from the automatic stay under 11 U. S. C.

§362(d)(1). The debtor acknowledged that the contract between the

parties entitled only the creditor to attorney’s fees, but the debtor

claimed that a California statute extended that entitlement to both 

parties. The court rejected that argument, noting that the statute

applied only in the context of an “‘action on a contract,’” and concluding 

that a request for relief from an automatic stay could not be considered

an action on a contract. 756 F. 2d, at 741–742. Both Coast Trading

and Fulwiler involved claims for attorney’s fees based on an Oregon 

statute similar to the statute at issue in Johnson; the court found the 

statute inapplicable in both cases. Coast Trading, 744 F. 2d, at 693; 

Fulwiler, 624 F. 2d, at 909–910. 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy, see, e.g., Raleigh, 

530 U. S., at 20, we generally presume that claims enforceable under applicable state law will be allowed in

bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed. See 11 

U. S. C. §502(b). Neither the court below nor PG&E has 

offered any reason why the fact that the attorney’s fees in

this case were incurred litigating issues of federal bankruptcy law overcomes that presumption. 

Section 502(b)(4) is instructive on this point. That 

provision expressly disallows claims for a particular category of attorney’s fees—those “for services of an . . . attorney of the debtor,” to the extent the claimed fees “excee[d] 

the reasonable value of such services.” The existence of 

that provision suggests that, in its absence, a claim for 

such fees would be allowed in bankruptcy to the extent 

enforceable under state law. The absence of an analogous

provision excluding the category of fees covered by the 

Fobian rule likewise suggests that the Code does not 

categorically disallow them. See 4 Collier ¶ 506.04[3][a], 

at 506–118 (concluding that Fobian “inverts the proper 

analysis” by allowing attorney’s fees only where they are

expressly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code, and explaining that “a claim for attorney’s fees arising in the

context of litigating bankruptcy issues must be allowed if 

valid under applicable state law”).

Congress, of course, has the power to amend the Bankruptcy Code by adding a provision expressly disallowing

claims for attorney’s fees incurred by creditors in the

litigation of bankruptcy issues. But because no such 

provision exists, the Bankruptcy Code provides no basis

for disallowing Travelers’ claim on the grounds stated by 

the Ninth Circuit. 

As we explained in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc., 537 U. S. 293 (2003), “where Congress has 

intended to provide . . . exceptions to provisions of the

Bankruptcy Code, it has done so clearly and expressly.” 
10 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v. 

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 302. Here, the Bankruptcy Code does not “clearly 

and expressly” compel courts to follow the Fobian rule; on 

the contrary, the Code says nothing about unsecured 

claims for contractual attorney’s fees incurred while litigating issues of bankruptcy law. In light of the broad,

permissive scope of §502(b)(1), and our prior recognition 

that “the character of [a contractual] obligation to pay

attorney’s fees presents no obstacle to enforcing it in 

bankruptcy,” it necessarily follows that the Fobian rule 

cannot stand. Security Mortgage, 278 U. S., at 154; see 

Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998) (“We . . . 

‘will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress

intended such a departure’” (quoting Pennsylvania Dept. 

of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 563 (1990))). 

III 

PG&E makes no effort to defend the Fobian rule. See 

Tr. of Oral Arg. 28 (conceding that PG&E does not defend 

the Fobian rule, and acknowledging that “[t]he Fobian

rule is wrong . . . as to the distinction that it draws between State law and Federal litigation”). Instead, PG&E 

argues that §506(b) categorically disallows unsecured 

claims for contractual attorney’s fees and—noting that

Travelers’ claim is unsecured—asks us to affirm on that 

basis. Section 506(b) provides as follows: 

“To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which . . . is greater 

than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed 

to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, 

and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for

under the agreement or State statute under which

such claim arose.” 11 U. S. C. A. §506(b) (Supp. 2006). 

According to PG&E, this provision authorizes claims for

contractual attorney’s fees to the extent the creditor is 
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

oversecured, but disallows such claims to the extent the 

creditor is either not oversecured or (like Travelers) completely unsecured. This reading of the Code, PG&E argues, “is not a matter of negative implication, but of explicit negation.” Brief for Respondent 18. PG&E also 

argues that the structure and purpose of the Bankruptcy 

Code, examined against the backdrop of pre-Code bankruptcy law, confirm that Congress did not intend to allow

unsecured creditors to recover attorney’s fees. See id., at 

25–38. 

PG&E did not raise these arguments below. Consequently, none of the lower courts had occasion to address 

them. Nor were these arguments presented in PG&E’s

brief in opposition to certiorari. PG&E nevertheless insists that we should address these arguments as though 

they were “fairly included” within the question presented

in Travelers’ petition for certiorari. See id., at 41. That 

contention appears to be premised on the theory that “the 

Fobian rule reaches the correct conclusion in this case,” 

but “doesn’t go far enough in . . . preventing creditors from 

requiring other creditors to pay for their attorneys’ fees.” 

Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. 

We are not persuaded. We granted certiorari to resolve 

a conflict among the lower courts regarding the Fobian 

rule, which is analytically distinct from, and fundamentally at odds with, PG&E’s reading of §506(b).4 

In any event, we ordinarily do not consider claims that

were neither raised nor addressed below, Cooper Indus-

—————— 

4PG&E’s new reading of the Code would prohibit all unsecured creditors from recovering contractual, postpetition attorney’s fees in bankruptcy proceedings—even if those fees were incurred while litigating

issues of state law. See Brief for Respondent 17–19. The Fobian rule, 

by contrast, would allow such a recovery—even by unsecured creditors—so long as the litigation resulting in the claimed fees did not

involve “issues peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.” See In re Fobian, 

951 F. 2d 1149, 1153 (CA9 1991). 
12 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA v. 

PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. 

Opinion of the Court

tries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168–169 

(2004), and PG&E has failed to identify any circumstances

that would warrant an exception to that rule in this case.

We therefore will not consider these arguments.5 

Accordingly, we express no opinion with regard to

whether, following the demise of the Fobian rule, other 

principles of bankruptcy law might provide an independent basis for disallowing Travelers’ claim for attorney’s

fees. We conclude only that the Court of Appeals erred in

disallowing that claim based on the fact that the fees at 

issue were incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law. 

* * * 

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

5For similar reasons, we will not address PG&E’s argument that

Travelers’ claim should be denied based on the theory that the fees at

issue were incurred in connection with activities that were not reasonably necessary to preserve Travelers’ rights and, alternatively, were

not authorized by Travelers’ contract with PG&E. See Brief for Respondent 42–49. This argument was not addressed below, was not

raised in PG&E’s brief in opposition to certiorari, and bears no relation

to the question presented. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the 

questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be

considered by the Court”).