Opinion ID: 1192306
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjudication as to ITO and the City.

Text: The district court was obviously correct in finding that the Ernish lawsuit was an adjudication of liability as to ITO and the City, against whom the judgment was entered. It does not follow, however, that General Star is obligated to reimburse Mutual Marine on the basis of that adjudication. Mutual Marine brought this lawsuit against General Star based on UFI's rights, to which it had succeeded, not those of ITO and the City. Only the seventy-five percent share ostensibly apportioned to UFI in the First Agreement has ever been at issue in the litigation against General Star, and not the twenty-five percent share apportioned to ITO and the City. Indeed, three of the five cross-claims filed by Mutual Marine against General Star are based explicitly on rights belonging to UFI. See Am. Ans. to Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-64. The fourth cross-claim includes mention of rights allegedly belonging to ITO and the City and their insurer, National Union, against General Star. See Am. Ans. to Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 143-57. But in its motion papers before the district court, Mutual Marine explicitly disavowed the notion that it was basing a claim against General Star on claims belonging to ITO and the City. [6] To the extent that the fourth cross-claim mentions any rights of ITO and the City or their insurer against General Star, it does so as background for its assertion that the First Agreement  which the district court has already correctly found not to bind General Star directly  was beneficial to General Star. See generally Am. Ans. to Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 143-157; see, e.g., Am. Ans. to Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 146 (By virtue of the added Insured status of New York City and ITO . . . the [First Agreement]. . . reduced by 25% the possibility that any judgment would pierce [General Star's] excess umbrella layer of coverage.). Indeed, Mutual Marine's motion papers refer throughout to UFI, not ITO and the City, as the insured. Finally, the fifth cross-claim asserts a nebulous independent right against General Star allegedly belonging to Mutual Marine. Am. Ans. to Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 159. It is not alleged to have ever belonged to ITO or the City. Thus Mutual Marine's position throughout this litigation has been that General Star is liable to it based on its insuring agreement with its insured UFI [which] obligated it to pay the sums UFI became obligated to pay as a result of an unquestionably covered loss. Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 11. That continues to be Mutual Marine's position on appeal. See Appellee's Br. 35 (describing Mutual Marine as seeking reimbursement for satisfy[ing][the] judgment . . . entered against UFI Fabricators, Inc.); id. at 39 (Mutual Marine properly showed the District Court that there was no question of fact but that General Star breached its duties to UFI and that Mutual Marine acquired UFI's right to recover for that breach by [General Star].). Mutual Marine is not pursuing any rights that may or may not have belonged to ITO and the City (or their insurers) based on their status as additional insureds. It is therefore immaterial for purposes of this lawsuit whether General Star has ever owed ITO and the City anything as additional named insureds under the GenStar Policy. That is not the claim that was made. The material question is whether there was an adjudication of liability against UFI, for which General Star would be obligated under the GenStar Policy to reimburse UFI. Since Mutual Marine does not assert rights in the place of ITO and the City against General Star, General Star is not liable to Mutual Marine on the basis of any direct obligation General Star may have had to ITO and the City arising out of the adjudication in the Ernish lawsuit against them.