Opinion ID: 772184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Bases and Criteria Ruling

Text: 84 The Excess Insurers take issue with a portion of the final judgment's preamble that incorporates the rulings set forth in an order issued by the district court on October 10, 1995. The October 10, 1995 order includes, inter alia, a declaration that the settlements arrived at to date between Plaintiff and the primary-level and other settling insurers were the result of non-collusive, arm's length negotiations and a declaration that each of the non-settling defendants except Utica Mutual Insurance Company is obliged to indemnify Squibb for all settlements and judgments and to pay all defense-related expenses on the same bases and criteria as that defendant's underlying carrier has committed to pay. Although the Excess Insurers do not object to the former ruling, they argue that, if the latter ruling is not surplusage in the context of the final judgment, it is based on a misreading of the excess policies and improperly suggests that the excess insurers might be called upon to pay pursuant to the bases and criteria of Squibb's settlements with its primary insurers. In response, Squibb makes only one argument: that the preamble's reference to the October 10, 1995 order must be maintained in order to preserve that order's ruling that the settlements were the result of arm's length negotiations. Because Squibb does not argue that the bases and criteria ruling is necessary to the final judgment, we assume that it now concedes that the preamble's incorporation of that ruling adds nothing to the judgment. Given this concession that the bases and criteria ruling is surplusage in the final judgment, there is no need for us to consider further the Excess Insurers' argument on this point.