Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I _ Case 3:03-cv-01000-PCD Document 46 Filed 05/24/2007 Paget of 2 A
l
______,,,........ - ............... - ........--------- - --—---- x |
l .
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:
l · - ‘ D n it
‘ FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE UmPu'°· Mama · a cr
l Arbitrator: Wendell O. Ingraham
p COMPANY OF C°I`"`iECT*CUT= Arbitrator: Ronald S. Gass
` Petitioner,
l and `
l TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY,
l Respondent.
E -——·- ·- —----—--·---·—--—------—- ·· ————····—·· · ············* "X
Panel Reply to U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey
I Upon remand of this matter by U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey pursuant to
Security Insurance Company of Hartford v. Trustmar/c Insurance Company, Civil No.
l 3:03 CV 1000 (PCD), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82438 (D. Ct. Nov. 13, 2006), to the same i
I arbitration Panel issuing the May 23, 2003 Final Order In the Matter of the Arbitration
i Between Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut, Petitioner and
T rustmark Insurance Company, Respondent (the "Final Order"), the Panel, having been
lt duly reconstituted and accepted by the parties following a remand organizational meeting
held in New York, New York on January 4, 2007 and having held a hearing on April 19,
2007 in New York, New York at which the parties presented oral argument and having .,
met and deliberated following that hearing and having fully considered all of the parties’
\ remand briefs, reply briefs, exhibits, and oral argument, responds as follows to the two
; questions posed by the Court upon remand: I `
l 1.. “[W]hether.it was Trustmarlds option to pursue the question of
redress of the $9,424,337 in another legal proceeding, without
altering Trustmark’s ultimate responsibility to FCIC, diminished
l _.__._mr,.2

l —.._r__—~&___h_._
T Case 3:03-cv-01000-PCD Document 46 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 cf 2
( only by whatever it received from arbitration or any other legal
T proceeding, if anything[?]" - The Panel’s answer is yes.
/
N
T 2. "[W]hether the [Pane1’s] Order provided for Trustmark’s pursuit of
T a legal proceeding other than arbitration on FCIC’s behalf ['?]" —
T The Panel’s answer is yes. U
T 1
‘ ` JJ
Umpire for and on behalf ofthe Panel
Dated: April 21, 2007 N
i
/
r i
T T
mi