Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brightpoint, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

March 20, 2017

BRIGHTPOINT, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

          This is a dispute over insurance coverage. Plaintiff, Brightpoint, Inc. (“Brightpoint”), is the insured under a Crime Policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), the Defendant. Brightpoint claims that it is entitled to coverage for a loss of nearly a million and a half dollars that one of its subsidiaries occasioned in the Philippines as a result of a scam involving prepaid telephone cards. Zurich has denied coverage. Each side has filed a motion seeking summary judgment.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is to be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining summary judgment, the court views all evidence and draws reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-51 (1986). The scope of coverage provided by an insurance policy, however, is a question of law particularly appropriate for resolution at the summary judgment stage since factual disputes, if any, are ordinarily limited to the amount of loss for which an insurer may be liable. See Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 384, 389 (2nd Cir. 2005); National Fire and Casualty Co. v. West by and Through Norris, 107 F.3d 531, 534-535 (7th Cir. 1997); Hurst-Rosche Engineers, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 51 F.3d 1336, 1342 (7th Cir.1995).

         II. Factual Background

         The coverage provision which Brightpoint seeks to invoke is referred to by the Zurich policy on the declarations page as “Form F - Computer Fraud/Wire Transfer.” Form F is relatively short and the relevant provisions are set out below:

A. COVERAGE
We will pay for loss of, and loss from damage to, Covered Property RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE Covered Cause of Loss.
1. Covered Property: “Money”, “Securities” and “Property Other Than Money and Securities”.
2. Covered Cause of Loss: “Computer Fraud”.
B. LIMIT OF INSURANCE
The most we will pay for loss in any one “occurrence” is the applicable Limit of Insurance shown in the DECLARATIONS.
C. DEDUCTIBLE
We will not pay for loss in any one “occurrence” unless the amount of loss exceeds the Deductible Amount in the DECLARATIONS. ... .
D. ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS, CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
In addition to the provisions in the Crime General Provisions, this Coverage Form is subject to the following:
1. ... .
2. ... ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.