Opinion ID: 2455129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Emergence of the Parties' Dispute

Text: In January 2002, Scandinavian entered into run-off, [3] thereby ceasing to underwrite new business. St. Paul also entered into run-off later the same year. After St. Paul requested that Scandinavian indemnify it for much of its loss, two disputes emerged between the parties concerning the Agreement's interpretation. First, the parties could not agree on whether they had intended the Agreement to limit the volume of liability assumed by Scandinavian. Scandinavian argued that the parties had intended the Agreement to be finite, and that the maximum possible loss to Scandinavian that the parties had contemplated was about $21 million. [4] St. Paul contended, however, that the Agreement contained no express limitation on the extent of risk that Scandinavian had assumed and that no such limitation should be read into the Agreement. St. Paul ultimately sought to charge Scandinavian with losses of approximately $290 million. Second, the parties could not agree on whether the Agreement provided for a single experience account, or instead three separate experience accounts (i.e., one for each year covered by the Agreement). Scandinavian argued that the Agreement provided for one, while St. Paul argued that there were three separate accounts.