FM Insurance Company Limited v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-02069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
FM Insurance v. ZIM Integrated Shipping: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement-in-principle report, allowing restoration by August 1, 2025, or dismissal with prejudice.
FM Insurance Company Limited, FM Insurance Europe S.A., and ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.; the action was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline.
What happened
FM Insurance Company Limited and FM Insurance Europe S.A. sued ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. The opinion says the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed the parties to ask to restore the action to the court’s calendar if they could not put their settlement in writing, but that request had to be made by August 1, 2025.
Judge Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- FM Insurance Company Limited v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-02069
- Vyskocil
- July 2, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Action
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by August 1, 2025.
Disposition
The court stated that if no application to restore the action was made by August 1, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars the action from being brought again. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.