Commercial Union Insurance v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Commercial Union Insurance v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co.

    251 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2001)   Cited 34 times

    The district court adopted the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Suma, concluding that under established admiralty law the term "`derangement or breakdown of the refrigerating machinery,' as the term is used in marine insurance contracts, applies to losses caused by mechanical disorders of refrigeration equipment." Commercial Union v. Sea Harvest, 75 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1270-71 (D.Kan. 1999), quoting Suma, 122 F.3d at 36. The court therefore granted Commercial Union's motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment action and denied Sea Harvest's motion for partial summary judgment.

  2. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Affiliate Strategies, Inc.

    Case No. 09-4104-RDR (D. Kan. Sep. 20, 2013)

    But, if the court had to decide, the court would find that Kansas choice-of-law principles govern. See A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra International Banking Corporation, 62 F.3d 1454, 1465 (D.C.Cir. 1995)(it is the source of the right, not the basis of federal jurisdiction, which determines the controlling law); see also Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Sea Harvest Seafood, 75 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1269 (D.Kan. 1999)(in the absence of a federal rule, state law controls disputes concerning maritime insurance policies, and if state laws conflict, the court determines the choice of state law using choice of law rules of the forum). Under those principles, Arizona law controls the construction of the insurance contract.