Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered on December 17, 2009 (Peter K. Leisure, Judge).
Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Co. v. Investors Capital Corp.
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of November, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSE A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court's order is AFFIRMED. Appellant's challenge to the District Court's order of April 20, 2008, denying appellant's motion for leave to amend its answer is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellant Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company
("Quanta") at one time provided a professional liability insurance policy to defendant-counter- claimant-appellant Investors Capital Corporation ("ICC"). Quanta brought this action in the District Court seeking a declaration that it was not required, under the insurance policy, to defend and indemnify ICC for certain ongoing arbitration proceedings in which ICC is a defendant. The District Court granted summary judgment to Quanta. See Quanta Lines Ins. Co. v. Investors Capital Corp., No. 06 Civ. 4624, 2009 WL 4884096 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2009). ICC then brought this appeal arguing that (1) the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to Quanta and (2) the District Court abused its discretion in declining to permit ICC to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense under N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1312(a).*fn1 We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of this action.
We review a district court's summary judgment rulings de novo, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). Undertaking that review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Quanta for substantially the reasons set forth by the District Court in connection with one of the three independent bases for the Court's December 17, 2009 ruling. Specifically, we agree with the District Court that "as of the . . . inception date of the original policy, ICC had knowledge or a reasonable basis upon which to anticipate that a wrongful act ...