Axis Reinsurance Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation

Filing 118

REDACTED JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff AXIS Reinsurance Company ("AXIS") and against defendant Northrop Grumman Corporation ("Northrop&qu ot;), as follows: (1) For the reasons stated in the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 107 , the Court declares, as a matter of law, AXIS's payment towards the settlement of the action entitled In re Northrop Grumman Co rporation ERISA Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:06-cv-6213 ("Grabek Settlement") was not covered by AXIS policy no. RLN715889/01/2006 issued to Northrop for the 8/1/2006 to 8/1/2007 policy period ("2006 AXIS Policy") because the 2006 AXIS Policy was prematurely triggered by underlying insurers National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. and Continental Casualty Co.'s payment of uninsurable loss in the form of the set tlement of an investigation by the Secretary of Labor of the United States Department of Labor for alleged violations by Northrop of provisions of Title I of ERISA ("DOL Settlement"); (2) That Northrop reimburse AXIS for the portion of the sum AXIS contributed toward the Grabek Settlement equal to payment of the uninsurable DOL Settlement; (3) That Northrop pay to AXIS in pre-judgment interest accrued from 11/30/2017, the date that AXIS paid its portion of the Grabek Settlement to 1/2/ 2019, the date of this judgment, using the 10 percent per annum rate pursuant to Section 3289 of the California Civil Code. (4) That AXIS recovers its costs subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. AXIS shall submit a bill of costs within 14 days from the date of this judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AXIS REINSURANCE COMPANY, a
12 corporation,

Case No. 2:17-cv-08660-AB (JCx)

Plaintiff,

13

[REVISED PROPOSED]
JUDGMENT

v.

14

(REDACTED)

15 NORTHROP GRUMMAN
CORPORATION, a corporation,
16
Defendant.
17

The action came on for hearing before the Court, on November 9, 2018,

18

19 Honorable André Birotte Jr., District Court Judge Presiding, on a Motion for
20 Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff AXIS Reinsurance Company (“AXIS”). The
21 evidence presented having been fully considered, the issues having been fully heard,
22 and an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 107]
23 having been duly rendered
24

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that judgment

25 be entered in favor of AXIS and against defendant Northrop Grumman Corporation
26 (“Northrop”), as follows:
27

1.

28

For the reasons stated in the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 107], the Court declares, as a matter of

4171565

1

1

law, AXIS’s payment of

towards the settlement of the

2

action entitled In re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation,

3

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.

4

2:06-cv-6213 (“Grabek Settlement”) was not covered by AXIS policy

5

no. RLN715889/01/2006 issued to Northrop for the August 1, 2006 to

6

August 1, 2007 policy period (“2006 AXIS Policy”) because the 2006

7

AXIS Policy was prematurely triggered by underlying insurers

8

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. and Continental

9

Casualty Co.’s payment of uninsurable loss in the form of the

10

settlement of an investigation by the Secretary of Labor of the United

11

States Department of Labor for alleged violations by Northrop of

12

provisions of Title I of ERISA (“DOL Settlement”);

13

2.

That Northrop reimburse AXIS the sum of

, comprising that

14

portion of the sum AXIS contributed toward the Grabek Settlement

15

equal to payment of the uninsurable DOL Settlement;

16

3.

That Northrop pay the sum of

to AXIS in pre-judgment

17

interest accrued from November 30, 2017, the date that AXIS paid its

18

portion of the Grabek Settlement [Doc. No. 88-6, p. 23 of 32

19

(undisputed fact 51)], to January 2, 2019, the date of this judgment,

20

using the 10 percent per annum rate pursuant to Section 3289 of the

21

California Civil Code (see Colony Ins. Co. v. Advanced Particle

22

Therapy, LLC, No. 17-CV-01427-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 1316214, at *3

23

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018) (in diversity case, governing state law

24

determines prejudgment interest rate) and MGA Entertainment, Inc. v.

25

Hartford Ins. Group, 869 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (10%

26

prejudgment interest rate applies to claims based on insurance

27

contract); and

28

4.
4171565

That AXIS recovers its costs subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
2

1

54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. AXIS shall submit a bill of costs within

2

14 days from the date of this judgment.

3

2ND
January, 2019
4 DATED this ______ day of ________, 2018
xxx
5
6
HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4171565

3