Opinion ID: 203971
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: USF & G's motion for an attachment

Text: On August 10, 2006, USF & G filed an ex parte motion to attach four parcels of real property that Eastern owned in Massachusetts. Pursuant to Rule 4.1(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, property may be attached for a specified amount upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will recover judgment, including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the attachment over and above any liability insurance possessed by defendants. USF & G did not specifically cite either Paragraph III(A) (the indemnification clause) or III(B) (the collateral security clause) in the memorandum of law submitted in support of its motion for an attachment. However, the memorandum did state that in its Complaint, USF & G seeks indemnification from Eastern, and further asserted that USF & G was entitled to be indemnified pursuant to the terms of the Agreement by the Indemnitor [Eastern], which indemnification includes reimbursement of all losses, costs, and attorneys' fees associated with the pending action (emphasis added). The affidavit accompanying the motion also stated that USF & G sought indemnification under the terms of the agreement, and referred to Eastern as the Indemnitor. It repeated that USF & G was entitled to be indemnified pursuant to the terms of the agreement by the Indemnitor. Thus, to the extent the motion for an attachment was based on a specific provision in the MSA, it seems to have been the indemnification clause. On August 11, 2006, the district court granted the attachment in the amount of $7,929,919.92. Eastern never objected to the attachment or sought to dissolve it. [5]