قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Markel loose in the D&O children’s program

Markel loose in the D&O children’s program



A Markel Corp. unit does not have to indemnify the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, under the responsibility of directors and officials in connection with a children’s program that lost its funding, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday, ruling a lower court decision.

The Alabama Space Science Exhibition Commission in Huntsville, Alabama, which operates as the US Space & Rocket Center, signed a contract agreement with New York-based Space Race LLC 2016 to produce a children’s TV show, following the decision of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta i Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, dba US Space & Rocket Center, v. Markel American Insurance Co., Deborah Barnhart, et al.

ASSEC promised to fund the project, a commitment of more than $ 4 million, provided it received a NASA grant for this purpose. Around the same time, the ASSEC entered into a “cooperation agreement”

; with NASA, which promised $ 4.5 million for the project, which was to be paid out over three years.

While “Space Racers” was successfully launched, ASSEC 2018 had stopped providing the promised funding. Space Race filed an arbitration claim in the case against ASSEC.

An arbitral tribunal ruled that the ASSEC had “substantially violated” its obligations under the memorandum and the cooperation agreement with NASA. It ordered ASSEC to pay the rest of the amount promised in the memorandum, which was more than $ 1.3 million plus interest.

The Markel unit Markel American Insurance refused to defend or indemnify ASSEC based on a breach of contract in its coverage.

ASSEC sues Markel American Insurance Co. in the U.S. District Court in Huntsville, which granted the insurer a summary judgment.

A panel of three judges confirmed the decision. “Even when narrowly constructed, the clear language for the exclusion of breach of contract still applies to Spec Race claims,” ​​the decision said.

“The only The basis for its allegations that ASSEC owed $ 1.5 million was a “written or express agreement or agreement” expressly intended by the exclusion, “it said in a confirmation of the lower court’s decision.

Lawyers in the case did not respond to requests for comment.


Source link