A federal appellate court on Wednesday partially overturned a lower court ruling, holding that a Starr Insurance Cos. .
The dispute i Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. Point Ruston, LLC, et al. centers on the alleged mismanagement of units involved in the “Point Ruston Project,” a 90-acre commercial housing development near Tacoma, Washington, where the underlying plaintiffs had invested, according to court papers.
Starr Indemnity filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Seattle against the defendants in the case and requested a legal explanation that Starr had no obligation to defend or indemnify Point Ruston and others in the litigation.
The district court ruled that Starr had an obligation to defend and hold the defendants indemnified. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with the lower court that Starr had an obligation to defend in the case, but held that it had no obligation to make amends.
“Neither the appellant̵7;s request for summary judgment nor the appellants’ cross-motion for partial summary involved substantive arguments regarding the obligation to make amends,” said a three-judge court panel.
“The district court, without requesting information on the matter … did not give (Starr) reasonable notice to produce facts to oppose this part of the summary judgment,” the judgment said, by partially reversing the lower court decision.
Lawyers in the case had no comments or did not respond to a request for comment.