Lexington Insurance Company v. Cindy Smith

Good Law
94 F.4th 870
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 29, 202422-35784California7,123 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKeown, J.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEXINGTON INSURANCE No. 22-35784

COMPANY; HOMELAND

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW D.C. No. YORK; HALLMARK SPECIALTY 3:21-cv-05930-

INSURANCE COMPANY; ASPEN DGE

SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY; ASPEN INSURANCE UK

LTD; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT OPINION

LLOYD'S, LONDON AND LONDON

MARKET COMPANIES

SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.

PJ193647; CERTAIN

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,

LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY

NO. PJ1900131; CERTAIN

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,

LONDON AND LONDON MARKET

COMPANIES SUBSCRIBING TO

POLICY NO. PJ1933021; CERTAIN

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,

LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY

NOS. PD-10364-05 AND PD-11091-00;

ENDURANCE WORLDWIDE

INSURANCE LIMITED T/AS SOMPO

INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIBING

TO POLICY NO. PJ1900134-A,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.

CINDY SMITH, in her official capacity as Chief Judge for the Suquamish Tribal Court; ERIC NIELSEN, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Suquamish Tribal Court of Appeals; BRUCE DIDESCH, in his official capacity as Judge of the Suquamish Tribal Court of Appeals; STEVEN D.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.