Continental Ins. Co. v. Lone Eagle Shipping Ltd. (Liberia), s. 445

Decision Date15 January 1998
Docket NumberNos. 445,587,D,s. 445
PartiesCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Corvette Cover Underwriters-1993, Tugu Insurance Company, China Insurance Company, Protector Forsikring AS, Oslo, Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Tokyo, FAI General Insurance Company Limited (Australia), New York Marine & General Insurance Company, Homestead Insurance Company and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd'S, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. LONE EAGLE SHIPPING LTD. (LIBERIA), Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, The Royal Bank of Scotland, PLC, Defendant-Counterclaimant. ocket 97-7261, 97-7320.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

John A.V. Nicoletti, New York City (Thomas M. Rittweger, Samuel C. Coluzzi, Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York City, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Burlingham Underwood, New York City (Terry L. Stoltz, Barbara Gonzalez, New York City, of counsel), submitted a brief, for Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Before: FEINBERG, KEARSE, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Lone Eagle Shipping Ltd. ("Lone Eagle") appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following a bench trial before Denise Cote, Judge, awarding plaintiffs Continental Insurance Co. et al. (collectively "Continental") reimbursement in the amount of $159,000 plus interest and costs, and declaring plaintiffs not liable on an insurance policy covering Lone Eagle's ship, the ALPHA STAR. On appeal, Lone Eagle contends that the district court erred in failing to find that the damage to its ship was caused by an insured peril of the sea. Continental has cross-appealed, arguing that, in the event we conclude that the ship was damaged by an insured peril of the sea, the judgment should nevertheless be affirmed on the ground that Lone Eagle breached various warranties. Finding no error, we affirm.

The district court's findings of fact after a bench trial may not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); see McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 7-8, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954). Assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to particular pieces of evidence are peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact and are entitled to considerable deference. See, e.g., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Commercial Union Ins. v. Detyens Shipyard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • June 21, 2001
    ... ... Co. v. Pier 39 Ltd. Partnership, 738 F.2d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.1984) ... Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir.1997); ... See Continental Ins. Co. v. Lone Eagle Shipping, Ltd., 952 ... ...
  • Stokes v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • March 31, 2022
    ...the loss "inevitable." Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Lone Eagle Shipping Ltd. (Liberia) , 952 F. Supp. 1046, 1061-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd , 134 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, the record demonstrates a genuine dispute of material fact as to the efficient proximate cause of the Vessel's sinking. While......
  • American Home Assur. v. Masters' Ships, 03 CIV. 0618(JFK).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 23, 2006
    ...Ins. Co. v. Lone Eagle Shipping Ltd. (Liberia), 952 F.Supp. 1046, 1065-67 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (Cote, J.), aff'd on other grounds, 134 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.1998), the district court took the position that the implied warranty would apply to time policies. Plaintiffs cite this case and the Fifth Circu......
  • Carco Grp., Inc. v. Maconachy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 21, 2013
    ...in this case is a finding of fact that is subject to the clear error standard of review. See Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Lone Eagle Shipping Ltd. (Liberia), 134 F.3d 103, 104 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam). We review a district court's award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. Cnty. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT