Opinion ID: 469785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maryland Insurance

Text: 43 Although we hold that Travelers and Liberty have a duty to defend Abex, we are presently unable to make any such determination with respect to Maryland. Before the District Court imposes any duty on Maryland, it must first determine that Maryland insured Abex for the years claimed. Under New York law, Abex has the burden of establishing the existence of this coverage. 48 44 On the record before us, there remains an unresolved dispute of fact concerning Maryland's coverage of Abex. The evidence supporting this coverage is arguably persuasive, but the standard for summary judgment requires that the District Court find no dispute of material fact--mere persuasiveness is not enough. 49 Although Abex presented two alleged policies found in the records of its London insurance broker, these policies are stamped SAMPLE and CANCELLED. Of course, as Abex suggests, this could merely denote the fact that only a copy of the policy was sent to London, and that the policy was cancelled at the end of the policy period. On a motion for summary judgment, however, we are not permitted to draw any inferences against Maryland. 50 As Maryland argues, SAMPLE could mean that these policies were prepared as only an example of the coverage Maryland could provide. Similarly, the fact that neither Maryland nor Abex's domestic insurance broker had a copy of the purported policies, and the fact that key provisions of the policies are missing, cast some doubt on the authenticity of these policies. 45 On remand, the District Court must conduct further proceedings before imposing liability on Maryland. If a factual dispute persists after further discovery, the District Court must hold a trial on this issue.