Opinion
No. 13-1551
03-25-2014
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, as successor in trust to FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT LEWIN, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: EVERETT J. CYGAL (David S. Spector, Catherine M. Masters, on the brief), Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of March, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
Circuit Judges,
CHRISTINA REISS,
Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FOR APPELLANT:
ROBERT LEWIN, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP, New York, NY.
FOR APPELLEE:
EVERETT J. CYGAL (David S. Spector,
Catherine M. Masters, on the brief),
Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Arrowood Indemnity Co., as successor to Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut, appeals an order denying its motion for judgment and contempt against Trustmark Insurance Co. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history (as implausible as that history may be), and the issues on appeal.
We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See, e.g., Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir. 2007); Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995). Upon such review, we conclude that Arrowood's motion was appropriately denied, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned March 29, 2013 Memorandum of Decision. See Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Trustmark Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2013).
We have considered all of Arrowood's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The order of the district court is hereby affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK