Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Factory Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided April 27, 2009No. 08-10450Published

1DissentGarwood, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. It is undisputed that Kimberly-Clark’s only relevant Factory Mutual policy expired by its terms on September 30, 2003, that prior to that time Kimberly-Clark had determined not to renew the policy, so informing Factory Mutual in late August 2003, and that Kimberly-Clark never attempted to renew the policy. On October 9, 2003, after the Kimberly-Clark policy had indisputably expired, the Factory Mutual’s Board of Directors declared a some $325 million surplus all of which would be credited to policyholders as of September 30, 2003 as a reduction of the premium payable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Zinn v. Germantown Farmers' Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Spence v. Medical Mutual Liability Insurance SocietyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API