According to the court: Utica and Goulds settled in 2007. They agreed, among other things, that each of Goulds’ primary policies from 1966 to 1972, which are missing, contained such an aggregate limit.
The insurance agreements were missing? This in itself is interesting. Is this the reason Utica settled?
I would love a summary interpretation of the events. It seems the lack of agreements put Utica in an unfavorable position. Utica realizing their weak position entered into a settlement without consulting Fireman’s Fund.
Had the agreements been found and the determination not been a settlement and instead was an action of the court, would then Fireman’s Fund have owed? Or is this that Fireman’s Fund simply signed an agreement that was likely never going to be enforceable?
What was the trigger that would have forced Fireman’s to pay?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
According to the court: Utica and Goulds settled in 2007. They agreed, among other things, that each of Goulds’ primary policies from 1966 to 1972, which are missing, contained such an aggregate limit.
The insurance agreements were missing? This in itself is interesting. Is this the reason Utica settled?
I would love a summary interpretation of the events. It seems the lack of agreements put Utica in an unfavorable position. Utica realizing their weak position entered into a settlement without consulting Fireman’s Fund.
Had the agreements been found and the determination not been a settlement and instead was an action of the court, would then Fireman’s Fund have owed? Or is this that Fireman’s Fund simply signed an agreement that was likely never going to be enforceable?
What was the trigger that would have forced Fireman’s to pay?