Opinion ID: 617942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proof of loss as described in this policy is received and accepted by the company[.]

Text: J.A. 954. Penford submitted its first claim on July 21, 2008, and received $1.25 million from each insurer by August 1. Penford filed its second claim in early October and received $8 million by October 23, 2008. Penford submitted additional claims in late November and late December, and the insurers made payments within 30 days of the receipt of the claims, for a total payout of $20.5 million. In addition to the foregoing requests for payment, Penford sought additional payments in late August 2008 and, after receiving no response, sent two letters reiterating its request in late September. The insurers replied by letter on October 14, 2008, declining to provide their coverage position. In a letter dated November 13, 2008, the insurers set forth their position that the sublimits applied not only to property damage, but also to any business interruption loss Penford suffered because of the flood. All told, Penford alleged property damage of $35.3 million, time element losses of $26.7 million, and professional fees paid for the preparation and submission of the insurance claims of roughly $440,000, for a total loss of approximately $62.5 million.
After the lawsuit was filed, the parties completed discovery and moved for summary judgment. After considering the parties' respective motions, the district court found that the Policy is ambiguous on the question of what losses are subject to the Policy's `Flood' sublimits, D. Ct. Order of Jan. 19, 2010, at 25, and determined that the parties' underlying intent would therefore be interpreted in light of extrinsic evidence offered at trial. As recounted earlier, the insurers moved for JMOL on the bad faith claim at the close of Penford's case-in-chief. The district court granted the motion, concluding that no jury would have a sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Penford. Following the presentation of the insurers' evidence, which included the submission of Rehmer's deposition, the insurers moved for JMOL on Penford's declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims. Penford submitted a brief in resistance to that motion and moved for JMOL on its remaining claims. After reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument, the district court denied Penford's motion and granted the insurers', finding that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for finding for plaintiffs on Count 1 and 2 of the complaint, that is, plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. J.A. 530.