ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company
Petitioner: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
Respondent: TIG Insurance Company
Case Number: 1:2016cv09527
Filed: December 9, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Edgardo Ramos
Nature of Suit: Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 79 Report and Recommendations. The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. The Court finds none and agrees with the R&R that judgment was "ascertained in a meaningful way and supported by the evidence" on May 26, 2020, when Judge Ramos confirmed the arbitral award and entered judgment for ExxonMobil. Andrulonis v. United States, 26 F.3d 1224, 1233 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno , 494 U.S. 827, 836 (1990)); see also NML Cap. v. Republic of Argentina, 435 F. App'x 41, 43 (2d Cir. 2011) ("In general, pre-judgment interest ceases to accrue, and post-judgment interest begins to accrue, as of the date that judgment fi rst 'is ascertained in a meaningful way and supported by the evidence.'" (quoting Adrian v. Town of Yorktown, 620 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir. 2010))). That judgment has never been disturbed by this Court, nor was it set aside after a se parate review on appeal. The Court finds ExxonMobil's suggestion that this Court should be guided by Ninth Circuit authority-rather than "certain decisions in the Second Circuit"-unpersuasive. See ExxonMobil Letter 3. Moreover, con trary to ExxonMobil's argument, the Second Circuit has expressly rejected the consideration of equities in determining what date "trigger[s] the running of interest." See, e.g., Andrulonis, 26 F.3d at 1233. The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 11/17/2022) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
August 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before August 22, 2022, the parties submit a proposed amended judgment that accords with the Second Circuit's ruling in this case. [See ECF No. 69]. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 8/15/2022) (tg)
October 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE denying 58 Motion to Vacate 58 MOTION to Vacate . Respondent's Motion for an indicative ruling [ECF No. 58] is DENIED. The challenged Orders are legally correct, and the Court denies the request that they be vacated. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 10/14/2021) (rro)
May 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 52 JUDGMENT: It is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 18, 2020, the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated August 14, 2019 ("Award") (Dkt. 38-1) is CONFIRMED ; and JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED on the Award in favor of Petitioner ExxonMobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil") and against Respondent TIG Insurance Company ("TIG") (a) in the amount of $33,010,245.90, representing the  6;25,000,000 awarded in the Award, plus pre-judgment interest on that amount accruing (pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 5001, 5002, and 5004) at a rate of 9% per annum in the amount of $8,010,245.90, from October 30, 2016, thr ough May 22, 2020; and (b) in the further amount of $6,147.54 per day in pre-judgment interest, accruing at the same 9% per annum, from May 23, 2020, through the date on which this Judgment is entered. This judgment shall accrue post-judgment interest as mandated in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/26/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (mro)
May 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 49 OPINION & ORDER re: 39 CROSS MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award. filed by TIG Insurance Company, 36 MOTION to Confirm Arbitration Award, Lift Stay, and for Entry of Final Judgment Including Prejudgment Interest. filed by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation., For the foregoing reasons, Mobil's motion to lift the stay and to confirm the Tribunal's award is GRANTED, and TIG's cross-motion to vacate the arbitral award is DENIED. Mobil's request for p re-judgment interest is also GRANTED. The parties are directed to submit by May 22, 2020 a proposed judgment that accords with this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. Nos. 36, 39, and 45. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/18/2020) Case Stay Lifted. (ks)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
Represented By: Peter Benjamin DeWitt Duke
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: TIG Insurance Company
Represented By: Christopher R. Carroll
Represented By: Heather Elizabeth Simpson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?