This case was previously reported by us on April 30, 2018. As we previously reported, on March 20, 2018, a New York federal court largely denied the motions for summary judgment of both plaintiff, Utica, and defendant, Munich Re, finding that the expense provisions in the facultative certificates at issue were ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was not submitted by the parties. Utica made a motion for reconsideration. In denying the motion, the court rejected Utica's argument that extrinsic evidence was presented on the ambiguity found by the court in the facultative certificates. The court noted that the evidence noted by Utica "would in no way alter the conclusion the Court previously reached on this matter" and also that Utica failed to show that reconsideration was required.
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Munich Reins. Am., Inc., Nos. 12-cv-00196; 12-cv-00743 (USDC N.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.