Opinion ID: 148187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: INA's Challenges

Text: INA challenges the District Court's Phase I ruling essentially on three grounds. First, it asserts that three of the specific allocation decisions Travelers madeto bypass the post-April 1982 AL policies in allocating the breast implant claims settlement, to allocate the chemical products claims settlement without performing any independent analysis of how those claims matched up to its policies or without allocating any of the settlement amount to the XS policies, and to allocate the entire portion of the settlement dedicated to the breast implant claims as indemnityare inexplicable except as part of a scheme to maximize Travelers' reinsurance recovery. Second, INA argues that the Wigmore Memo is direct evidence that Travelers improperly considered reinsurance implications in performing the allocation. And, finally, INA claims that the District Court's ruling was based on evidence that should have been excluded namely, evidence that Travelers sought and received legal advice about how to handle its insurance coverage dispute with Acme.