Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited
Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited, for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 1414
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Citgo v. Starstone, Judge Woods ordered additional briefing on the historical meaning of “insurrection” in the insurance policy.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation and the defendants, including Starstone Insurance SE, must address the historical interpretation of insurrection clauses under the briefing schedule.
What happened
Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s dispute with Starstone Insurance SE and other defendants concerns an insurance policy governed by New York law. The court explained that policy interpretation begins with the policy’s language and the parties’ intent.
The court said the parties’ briefs did not thoroughly explain the meaning of “insurrection” as used in the contract. It stated that the term’s historical development and use might help resolve issues including whether an insurrection’s target must control territory and how much power that target must be able to exercise.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered Citgo and the defendants to file opening briefs on the historical interpretation of insurrection clauses within 21 days. Each side may file a response within 14 days after the opposing side serves its opening brief.
The detailed version
- Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited · No. 1:21-cv-00389
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 23, 2022
Background
The dispute concerns an insurance policy that, according to the order, is governed by New York law. The court stated that New York courts interpret insurance policies by giving fair meaning to all of their language, leaving no provision without effect, and giving effect to the parties’ intent as shown by the contract.
Issue Identified by the Court
The court found that the parties’ briefing did not sufficiently discuss the meaning of “insurrection” as used in the policy. It explained that the historical development and meaning of terms in insurance contracts can inform their interpretation. In particular, the historical meaning and use of “insurrection” might bear on the defendants’ position that the target of an insurrection must have de facto control of territory and on the degree of power that the target must be capable of exercising to qualify as such.
Order
The court ordered both Citgo and the defendants to file and serve briefs on the historical interpretation of insurrection clauses in insurance contracts no later than 21 days from the order’s date. Each side may file a response to the opposing side’s opening brief no later than 14 days after service of the opening briefs. The order sets a schedule for additional briefing; it does not decide the meaning of “insurrection” or the parties’ insurance-coverage dispute.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because the court directed additional briefing and did not resolve the underlying coverage question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.