Court Opinion

ID: 9432028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:33:58.48863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:31.731273
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
The Court wisely decides this case on a narrow ground. Its opinion, however, ignores an aspect of the case that is of critical importance for me.
The parties agree that Citibank assumed the risk of loss caused by either the insolvency of its Manila branch, or by an act of God.* Citibank argues that only the so-called “sovereign risk” is excluded from its undertaking to repay the de*675posit out of its general assets. In my opinion such a specific exclusion from a general undertaking could only be the product of an express agreement between the parties. The District Court’s finding that no such specific agreement existed is therefore dispositive for me.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

E. g., Brief for Petitioner 16, n. 26; Brief for Respondent 15, 39-40; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, 16 (petitioner); id., at 31-32 (United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner).