green
Positive treatment
18.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Summerhaze Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Co., 975 F.2d 677, 681 (10th Cir.1992). 10 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Essex Insurance Co. v. Integrated Drainage Solutions, Inc.
Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir.1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.
Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677, 688 (10th Cir.1992); 3 Powell v. Ameri can Cas.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corporation
Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir.1992); see also Essex Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
QBE Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Ass'n
Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir.1992); see also Essex Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 681 (10th Cir.1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Essex Insurance v. Zota
Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir.1992) (“[vjoidance of exclusion to an insurance policy is a severe penalty which alters the very terms of the deal between the parties.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Combs v. Shelter Mutual Insurance
We will “not permit ambiguities *998 to be created by taking contract provisions out of context.” FDIC. v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 680 (10th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maska U.S., Inc. v. Kansa General Insurance
Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677, 682-83 (10th Cir.1992) (applying Oklahoma law); Great Lakes Container Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maska U.S., Inc. v. Kansa General Insurance Company
Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677, 682-83 (10th Cir. 1992) (applying Oklahoma law); Great Lakes Container Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vigil v. Rio Grande Insurance
Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682-83 (10th Cir.1992) (voiding of unapproved exclusion is unduly severe remedy).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vigil v. Rio Grande Ins. of Santa Fe
App.1982) (court will not enforce unapproved rider that directly contradicts term in approved policy) with FDIC v. American Cas. *302 Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682-83 (10th Cir.1992) (voiding of unapproved exclusion is unduly severe remedy).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cage v. Litchfield Mutual Insurance
Corp. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir. 1992), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “we do not believe that the Oklahoma legislature intended that otherwise lawful exclusions be voided simply for failure to comply with [ Okla.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hedden
Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 682, 683 (10th Cir.1992) (holding failure to gain approval of Insurance Board for endorsement did not void regulatory exclusion); see also Gary v. American Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanton v. RICH BAKER BERMAN & CO., PA
In the absence of a clear violation of public policy under New York law, invalidating any portion of the Agreements is inappropriate. 18 F.D.I.C. v. American Casualty Co., 998 F.2d 404 , 409 (7th Cir.1993) (“The power to deny enforcement of contract terms on public policy grounds is restricted to those situations in which the contract would violate ‘some explicit public policy, that is well-defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not *1387 from general considerations of supposed public interest.’ ” (quoting United Paperworkers In…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Company Of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 702-03 (8th Cir.1992); FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. of Reading v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 702-03 (8th Cir.1992); FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. v. Sentry Federal Savings Bank
(2×)
Co., 975 F.2d 677, 680-83 (10th Cir.1992); American Cas.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. v. Rahn
Co. of Reading, PA 975 F.2d 677, 680 (4th Cir.1992) (citing similar holdings in several other cases).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corporation Cna Insurance Companies, Counterclaim-Defendants-Appellants v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Ernest W. Baker, and Peter T. Fletcher, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, and Franklin D. Hatridge Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants-Appellees, and Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher, Bernard Baker, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris, Jr., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants-Appellees, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants-Appellees, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge James D. Stroffe Bruce Kehrli Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Joe G. Baker Verne F. Potter William E. Leonard James C. Roberts Frank Purcell, Jr. Joe Sax H. Cedric Roberts Ernest W. Baker Harold Harris John E. Egdahl Walter L. Huckabay Joe D. McCarthy Franklin D. Hatridge Peter T. Fletcher Bernard Baker, Bruce A. Kehrli James D. Stroffe, Continental Casualty Company Cna Financial Corp. Cna Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants, Resolution Trust Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor
On appeal, the RTC contends only that the exclusion is inapplicable because the RTC is not a "regulatory agency." We reject this strained argument. 71 The Regulatory Exclusion provides that CNA will not be liable for claims against the Directors/Officers based upon or attributable to: 72 [A]ny action or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the [FDIC], the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation, any other depository insurance organization, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, or any other national or state regulatory agency ... including any type of legal ac…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
Because every circuit that has considered the exclusion has found it valid and not violative of public policy, see FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 998 F.2d 404, 407-10 (7th Cir.1993) (Cuba); FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 996 F.2d 471, 472-74 (4th Cir.1993) (Fidelity); FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 680-83 (10th Cir.1992) (Security); FDIC v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236 , 1239-44 (5th Cir.1992); St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp.
Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 701 (8th Cir.1992) citing American Casualty Co. v. FDIC, 944 F.2d 455 , 460 (8th Cir.1991) (“when read as a whole, the regulatory exclusion covers any claim, direct or secondary, brought against the directors and officers of the bank by the FDIC in any capacity”); FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 690 (10th Cir. 1992) (awkward “based upon or attributable language” simply acts as a link between general excluding language and the specific types of claims excluded); FSLIC v. Shelton, 789 F.Supp. 1367 (M.D.La.1992) (holding that phrase “based upon or…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Casualty Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Co., 975 F.2d 677, 679-80 (10th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. American Casualty Company Of Reading, Pennsylvania, Inc.
Co. of Reading, PA., 975 F.2d 677, 680 (10th Cir.1992). 13 Nor does enforcement of the regulatory exclusion violate federal law or public policy.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania
Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677, 680 (10th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Beaudette, Inc. v. Sentry Insurance a Mutual Co.
See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir.1992) (failure to provide for voiding of policy in statute and providing for such voiding elsewhere indicated legislative intent to preclude voiding of insurance provision).
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Deposit Insurance v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, PA.
See American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d at 682 (examining the legislative history of § 1821).
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., Garnishee Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Margie Zaborac, Chester Jacobus, George Baylor, and Harry Tarter, Wayne Grove and Linda Grove, and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., Garnishee
See American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d at 682 (examining the legislative history of § 1821).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fidelity & Deposit Company Of Maryland v. Thomas R. Conner
See FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1992) (rejecting FDIC's assertion that exclusionary clause in director and officer liability policy was void as contrary to public policy, court stated that "Congress intended to remain neutral on the question in FIRREA."); St.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Conner
See FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1992) (rejecting FDIC’s assertion that exclusionary clause in director and officer liability policy was void as contrary to public policy, court stated that “Congress intended to remain neutral on the question in FIRREA.”); St.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Casualty Co. v. Continisio
See, e.g., FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677 (10th Cir.1992); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir.1992); St.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading
(3×)
Co., 800 P.2d 58, 60 (Colo.1990); see also FDIC v. American Casualty Co., 975 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1992) (finding that state statutes could articulate a public policy voiding regulatory exclusions).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Oscar J. PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Oscar J. PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
90-4149.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Aug 24, 1992.
McKay, Logan, Seymour, Moore, Anderson, Tacha, Baldock, Brorby, Ebel, Kelly, Sparr.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
Upon consideration of the government’s petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc and the appellant’s response:
The petition for rehearing is denied by the panel that rendered the decision sought to be reheard.
In accordance with Fed.R.App.P. 35(b), the clerk transmitted the suggestion for rehearing en banc to members of the panel and to all other judges of the court in regular active service. A vote was taken and pursuant thereto the court grants rehearing en banc of those issues raised in the government’s petition.
Oral argument on rehearing en banc is set for Tuesday, September 29, at 2:30 p.m. in the United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado.