The United States District Court for the Central District of California has reversed a bankruptcy court ruling allowing two law firms—Snyder Miller & Orton LLP (SMO) and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (MLB)—to serve as "special insurance counsel" to address insurance and insurance-coverage-litigation-related matters under the narrow special purpose standards of § 327(e). In re Thorpe Insulation Co., No. CV08-00246-DSF (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008). Citing In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir.

Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald ruled last week that a debtor's insurance policies are assets of the estate and, therefore, can be properly transferred to a § 524(g) trust notwithstanding any applicable anti-assignment clauses. In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc., 01-10578 (Bankr. D. Del. March 19, 2008).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled that a defendant in a declaratory judgment coverage action waived all of his discovery objections, including objections based upon the Fifth Amendment, for failing timely to assert them. Federal Ins. Co. v. Le-Nature's, Inc., 380 B.R. 747 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008). Wiley Rein LLP represented the insurer.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Johns-Manville bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin direct action claims asserted against Travelers entities that are predicted on an independent duty owed by Travelers, that do not claim against the res of the Manville estate, and that seek damages unrelated to and in excess of Manville's insurance proceeds. Johns-Manville Corp. v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 399010 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2008).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying federal law, has reversed a bankruptcy court's ruling that the proceeds of an E&O liability policy were property of a bankruptcy estate. In re Burr Wolff, LP, 2007 WL 2964835 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2007). The court held instead that the issue was not ripe for adjudication because a declaratory judgment action concerning the insurer's obligations under the policy was pending, and thus "no proceeds" were currently available.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to hear a chapter 11 debtor's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, which the debtor filed after its chapter 11 plan had been confirmed and substantially consummated. Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, No. 06-1571,___ F.3d ___, WL 1439734 (4th Cir. May 17, 2007). This decision delineates the limits of bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over claims filed by the debtor after plan confirmation.

Background

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers. The court found that the plan was unreasonable and that, under the terms of the plan, insurance obligations are not triggered because it was not shown that Congoleum was "legally obligated to pay" the claimants who would receive payments. Congoleum Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. MID-L-8908-01 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 18, 2007).

On April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of the Second Circuit's decision dismissing, as equitably moot, appeals arising out of the bankruptcy of Charter Communications and let stand the opinion in In re Charter Communications, Inc., 691 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2012). As a result, the application of the equitable mootness doctrine, as it applies to bankruptcy appeals, will continue to vary among jurisdictions.

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  According to the court, the bankruptcy exclusion is unenforceable because coverage arises from a policy that is a property interest of the debtors, and that property interest is protected under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The insured versus insured exclusion did not apply, the court held, because the policyholder and a court-appointe