Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway v. Keach, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway v. Keach, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 9003

I N RE MONTREAL, MAI NE & ATLANTI C RAI LWAY, LTD. ,

Debt or .

_____________________

WHEELI NG & LAKE ERI E RAI LWAY CO. ,

Appel l ant ,

v.

ROBERT J . KEACH, Chapt er 11 Tr ust ee, ET AL. ,

Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANELFOR THE FI RST CI RCUI T

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Sel ya and Dyk, *Ci r cui t J udges.

Geor ge J . Mar cus, wi t h whom Davi d C. J ohnson, Andr ew C.Hel man, and Mar cus, Cl egg & Mi st r et t a, P. A. wer e on br i ef , f or t heappel l ant .

Rober t J . Keach, wi t h whomBernst ei n Shur Sawyer & Nel son wason br i ef , f or appel l ee.

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/25

August 19, 2015


3/25

- 3 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Thi s bankrupt cy appeal pr esent s

an i ssue of f i r st i mpr essi on at t he f eder al appel l at e l evel : does

Ar t i cl e 9 of t he Uni f or m Commer ci al Code (UCC) , as enact ed i n

Mai ne, gover n t he t aki ng and per f ect i on of a secur i t y i nt er est i n

a r i ght t o payment ar i si ng under an i nsurance pol i cy? The

bankrupt cy cour t answer ed t hi s quest i on i n t he negat i ve;

determi ned t hat Mai ne common l aw cont r ol l ed; and hel d t hat t he

af f ect ed credi t or , appel l ant Wheel i ng & Lake Er i e Rai l way Company

( Wheel i ng) , had f ai l ed pr oper l y t o per f ect i t s secur i t y i nt er est

i n payment s due t o t he debt or under an i nsurance pol i cy. See I n

r e Mont r eal Me. & At l . Ry. Lt d. ( MMA I ) , No. 13- 10670, 2014 WL

1491301, at *2 ( Bankr . D. Me. Apr . 15, 2014) . Based on t hi s

det er mi nat i on, t he cour t awar ded t he pr oceeds f r om a set t l ement

ar i si ng out of a di sput ed cl ai m under t he pol i cy t o t he debt or ,

f r ee and cl ear of Wheel i ng' s asser t ed i nt er est . See i d. The

bankr upt cy appel l ate panel ( BAP) af f i r med, see Wheel i ng & Lake

Er i e Ry. Co. v. Keach ( I n r e Mont r eal , Me. & At l . Ry. , Lt d. ) ( MMA

I I ) , 521 B. R. 703, 715 ( B. A. P. 1st Ci r . 2014) , and so do we.

I. BACKGROUND

We br i ef l y rehear se the f act s and t r avel of t he case.

I n J une of 2009, Wheel i ng ext ended t o t he debt or , Mont r eal , Mai ne

and At l ant i c Rai l way, Lt d. ( MMA) , a $6, 000, 000 l i ne of cr edi t . To

secur e i t s obl i gat i ons under t he l i ne of cr edi t , MMA execut ed and


4/25

- 4 -

del i ver ed t o Wheel i ng a secur i t y agr eement ( t he Agr eement ) . 1 The

Agr eement pur posed t o gr ant Wheel i ng a secur i t y i nt er est i n:

A. Al l Account s and ot her r i ght s t o payment( i ncl udi ng Payment I nt angi bl es) , whet her ornot ear ned by per f or mance, i ncl udi ng but notl i mi t ed t o, payment f or pr oper t y or ser vi cessol d, l eased, r ent ed, l i censed, or assi gned.Thi s i ncl udes any r i ght s and i nter est s( i ncl udi ng al l l i ens) t hat [ MMA] may have byl aw or agr eement agai nst any account debt or orobl i gor of [ MMA] .

B. Al l I nvent or y[ . ]

C. Al l addi t i ons, accessi ons, subst i t ut i ons,

r epl acement s, pr oduct s t o or f or , and al l cashor non- cash pr oceeds of any of t he f oregoi ng,i ncl udi ng i nsur ance pr oceeds.

I t f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat al l r i ght s t her eunder wer e to be gover ned

by Mai ne l aw, except where Mai ne' s i t er at i on of t he UCC di r ect ed

appl i cat i on of t he l aw of t he st at e i n whi ch MMA was l ocat ed

( Del awar e) .

Wheel i ng sought t o per f ect i t s secur i t y i nt er est by

f i l i ng a UCC- 1 f i nanci ng st at ement wi t h the Del awar e Depar t ment of

St at e. I t t ook no ot her act i on t o per f ect an i nt er est i n any

i nsurance pol i ci es t hat MMA mi ght hol d or come t o hol d.

1 Sever al of MMA' s af f i l i at es wer e par t i es t o t he l i ne ofcr edi t , t he Agr eement , and a ser i es of r el at ed t r ansact i ons. Forease i n exposi t i on, we r ef er t o MMA and i t s af f i l i at es,col l ect i vel y, as MMA. We si mi l ar l y omi t any di scussi on of par al l elCanadi an i nsol vency pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng MMA' s Canadi ansubsi di ar y.


5/25

- 5 -

I n Apr i l of 2013, Travel er s Proper t y Casual t y Company of

Amer i ca ( Tr avel er s) i ssued a commer ci al pr oper t y i nsur ance pol i cy

( t he Pol i cy) t o MMA. The Pol i cy gr ant ed MMA $7, 500, 000 of t ot al

cover age and cont ai ned a sect i on pur por t i ng t o cover busi ness

i nt er r upt i on. Wi t hi n a mat t er of mont hs, a cal ami t ous i nci dent of

hi st or i c pr opor t i ons br ought t he Pol i cy i nt o pl ay.

On J ul y 6, an MMA f r ei ght t r ai n t hat i ncl uded 72 t anker

car s f i l l ed wi t h oi l der ai l ed i n Lac- Mgant i c, Qubec. The

der ai l ment spar ked massi ve expl osi ons, whi ch dest r oyed part of

Lac- Mgant i c and ki l l ed 47 peopl e. I n t he wake of t hi s di sast er ,

MMA f i l ed a cl ai m under t he Pol i cy f or , i nt er al i a, l ost busi ness

i ncome. Tr avel er s deni ed t he cl ai m, assert i ng t hat i t had not

i nsur ed agai nst busi ness i nt er r upt i on.

I n ear l y August , MMA f i l ed a vol unt ar y pet i t i on f or

pr otect i on under Chapt er 11 of t he Bankr upt cy Code. See 11 U. S. C.

301. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Rober t J . Keach ( t he t r ust ee) was

appoi nt ed t o ser ve as Chapt er 11 t r ust ee f or MMA' s r ai l r oad

r eor gani zat i on pr oceedi ng. See i d. 1163. Tr avel er s moved f or

r el i ef f r om t he aut omat i c stay, see i d. 362, so t hat i t coul d

seek a decl ar at i on t hat t he Pol i cy di d not af f or d busi ness

i nt er r upt i on cover age. The bankrupt cy cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on.

Wheel i ng whi ch by t hen was owed t he ent i r e $6, 000, 000

under t he l i ne of cr edi t soon i nst i t ut ed an adver sary pr oceedi ng

agai nst MMA, Tr avel er s, and t he t r ust ee i n whi ch i t sought a


6/25

- 6 -

decl ar at i on r egar di ng t he nat ur e, ext ent , val i di t y, and pr i or i t y

of i t s asser t ed secur i t y i nt er est i n any payment s due under t he

Pol i cy. Wi t hout obj ect i on, t he bankrupt cy cour t st ayed t he

adver sar y pr oceedi ng. Meanwhi l e, MMA and t he t r ust ee began

negot i at i ons wi t h Tr avel er s. Those negot i at i ons cul mi nat ed i n a

set t l ement t hat , i n r el evant par t , r equi r ed Tr avel er s t o pay

$3, 800, 000 t o MMA i n sat i sf act i on of al l cl ai ms under t he Pol i cy.

When t he t r ust ee moved f or bankr upt cy cour t appr oval of

t he set t l ement , Wheel i ng obj ect ed. Wheel i ng ar gued t hat t he

Agr eement gr ant ed i t a f i r st - pr i or i t y secur i t y i nt er est i n t he

pr oposed set t l ement . The gi st of Wheel i ng' s posi t i on was t hat i t

hel d a per f ect ed secur i t y i nt er est i n al l payment r i ght s bel ongi ng

t o MMA and that t he pr oposed set t l ement payment const i t ut ed

pr oceeds of MMA' s r i ght t o payment under t he Pol i cy, whi ch

al t hough cont i ngent ar ose at t he t i me t he Pol i cy was i ssued.

I ni t i al l y, t he bankr upt cy cour t t empor i zed: i t gr ant ed

t he appr oval mot i on but ordered t he f unds hel d i n escr ow pendi ng

a det er mi nat i on of t he r i ght s of t he par t i es and t he pr i or i t i es of

t hei r compet i ng cl ai ms. The bankrupt cy cour t l at er r ul ed t hat

Wheel i ng' s assert ed secur i t y i nt er est was unenf or ceabl e because

Ar t i cl e 9 of t he UCC does not appl y t o an i nt er est i n a cl ai munder

a pol i cy of i nsur ance and Wheel i ng had f ai l ed t o per f ect i t s

i nter est under Mai ne common l aw. See MMA I , 2014 WL 1491301, at

*2. Bui l di ng on t hi s f oundat i on, t he cour t concl uded t hat MMA was


7/25

- 7 -

ent i t l ed t o t he set t l ement pr oceeds f r ee and cl ear of Wheel i ng' s

asser t ed i nt er est . See i d. Wheel i ng appeal ed t o t he BAP, whi ch

af f i r med. See MMA I I , 521 B. R. at 715. Thi s t i mel y second- t i er

appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

Appeal s i n bankrupt cy cases ar e f i l t ered t hr ough a t wo-

t i er ed system of i nt er medi at e appel l at e r evi ew. A di sappoi nt ed

l i t i gant nor mal l y must t ake a f i r st - t i er appeal t o ei t her t he

di st r i ct cour t or t he BAP. See 28 U. S. C. 158( a) - ( b) ; Br andt v.

Repco Pr i nt er s & Li t hogr aphi cs, I nc. ( I n r e Heal t hco I nt ' l , I nc. ) ,

132 F. 3d 104, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . Whi chever r out e t he l i t i gant

chooses, f ur t her r ecour se i s t o t he cour t s of appeal s. See 28

U. S. C. 158( d) ( 1) ; Ci t y Sani t . , LLC v. Al l i ed Wast e Ser vs. of

Mass. , LLC ( I n r e Am. Car t age, I nc. ) , 656 F. 3d 82, 87 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . We accord no speci al def erence t o determi nat i ons made by

t he f i r st- t i er appel l at e t r i bunal but , r at her , t r ai n t he l ens of

our i nqui r y di r ect l y on t he bankrupt cy cour t ' s deci si on. See

Gannet t v. Car p ( I n r e Car p) , 340 F. 3d 15, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Wi t hi n t hi s f r amewor k, we assay t he bankrupt cy cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of

f act f or cl ear er r or and i t s concl usi ons of l aw de novo. See Am.

Car t age, 656 F. 3d at 87.

A. Applicability of Article 9.

I n bankrupt cy pr oceedi ngs, st at e l aw gener al l y suppl i es

t he r ul es gover ni ng t he val i di t y and per f ect i on of secur i t y


8/25

- 8 -

i nt er est s. See I ndi an Mot ocycl e Assocs. I I I Ltd. P' shi p v. Mass.

Hous. Fi n. Agency, 66 F. 3d 1246, 1252 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Her e, t he

Agr eement di r ect s us t o Mai ne as t he sour ce of t he r el evant st at e

l aw. I n Mai ne, secur ed t r ansact i ons ar e l ar gel y gover ned by a

st at e- speci f i c adapt at i on of Ar t i cl e 9 of t he UCC. See Me. Rev.

St at . t i t . 11, 9- 1101 t o 9- 1709.

Wheel i ng posi t s t hat Ar t i cl e 9, as enact ed i n Mai ne,

appl i es t o t he creat i on of secur i t y i nt er est s i n r i ght s t o payment

ar i si ng under i nsur ance pol i ci es. I t f ur t her posi t s t hat because

Ar t i cl e 9 gover ns t he t aki ng and per f ect i on of secur i t y i nt er est s

i n such payment r i ght s, t he bankrupt cy cour t err ed by l ooki ng t o

t he common l aw t o eval uat e t he enf or ceabi l i t y of Wheel i ng' s

asser t ed i nt er est .

As r el evant her e, Ar t i cl e 9 appl i es t o t r ansact i ons

"r egar dl ess of [ ] f or m, t hat creat e[ ] a secur i t y i nt er est i n

per sonal pr oper t y or f i xt ur es by cont r act . " I d. 9- 1109( 1) ( a) .

But Ar t i cl e 9 expr essl y excl udes cer t ai n t r ansact i ons f r om i t s

scope. The val i di t y of secur i t y i nt er est s cr eat ed t hr ough such

t r ansact i ons i s det er mi ned by ref er ence ei t her t o ot her st at ut es

or t o t he common l aw. See Am. Bank & Trust Co. v. J ardi ne I ns.

Ser vs. Tex. , I nc. ( I n r e Bar t on I ndus. , I nc. ) , 104 F. 3d 1241, 1246-

47 ( 10t h Ci r . 1997) .

One subset of t r ansact i ons t hat Ar t i cl e 9 excl udes

encompasses t he " t r ansf er of an i nt er est i n or an assi gnment of a


9/25

- 9 -

cl ai m under a pol i cy of i nsur ance. " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 9-

1109( 4) ( h) . Thus, t he quest i on becomes whet her Ar t i cl e 9' s

i nsurance excl usi on cover s payment r i ght s under i nsurance

pol i ci es. We t ur n t o t hat quest i on.

The i nsur ance excl usi on i s broadl y wor ded. I t was

i nser t ed i n Ar t i cl e 9 t o ensur e t hat f i nanci ng ar r angement s

i nvol vi ng t he use of i nsur ance pol i ci es as col l at er al woul d r emai n

mat t ers of st ate i nsurance l aw. See 7 Thomas M. Qui nn, Qui nn' s

Uni f ormCommerci al Code Comment ary & Law Di gest 9- 104[ A] [ 9] ( r ev.

2d ed. 2011) ; see al so Thi co Pl an, I nc. v. Mapl ewood Poul t r y Co.

( I n r e Mapl ewood Poul t r y Co. ) , 2 B. R. 550, 554 ( Bankr . D. Me. 1980)

( Cyr , J . ) ( not i ng t hat i nsur ance t r ansact i ons wer e excl uded at

i nsur ance i ndust r y' s request ) . Thi s i s bor ne out by t he of f i ci al

comment ar y t o Ar t i cl e 9, whi ch or i gi nal l y expl ai ned t hat al l

t r ansact i ons i nvol vi ng t he use of "[ r ] i ght s under " i nsur ance

pol i ci es as col l at er al wer e excl uded because such t r ansact i ons

"are of t en qui t e speci al , do not f i t easi l y under a gener al

commer ci al st at ut e and ar e adequat el y cover ed by exi st i ng l aw. "

Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 9- 104 cmt . 7 ( r epeal ed 2001) . 2

2 We say "or i gi nal l y" because t he Mai ne l egi sl at ur e enact edan over haul ed ver si on of Ar t i cl e 9 ( known as Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9)some 15 year s ago. Those r evi si ons, wi del y enact ed by ot her st at esas wel l , were accompani ed by t hei r own comment ary. But t her evi si ons l eave t he i nsur ance excl usi on i nt act , and t he newercomment ary does not cont r adi ct t he l anguage al l uded t o above.


10/25

- 10 -

By i t s t er ms, t he excl usi on appl i es t o t he use of an

i nsur ance pol i cy as or i gi nal col l at er al or t o any assi gnment of a

cl ai m under an i nsurance pol i cy. See Am. Bank, FSB v. Cor ner st one

Cmt y. Bank, 733 F. 3d 609, 614 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) ; PPG I ndus. , I nc. v.

Har t f or d Fi r e I ns. Co. , 531 F. 2d 58, 60 ( 2d Ci r . 1976) . And t he

excl usi on i s gener al l y under st ood t o sweep mor e expansi vel y i n

l i ne wi t h t he of f i ci al comment ar y' s r ef er ence t o t he use of

"r i ght s" under an i nsur ance pol i cy as col l at er al . Consi st ent wi t h

t hi s br oader ar t i cul at i on of appl i cabi l i t y, cour t s r egul ar l y have

r ead t he excl usi on t o remove f r om t he reach of Ar t i cl e 9 any

t r ansact i on i nvol vi ng t he t r ansf er of r i ght s under an i nsur ance

pol i cy.

One exampl e wi l l suf f i ce. Many cases const r ui ng t he

excl usi on have done so i n t he cont ext of determi ni ng whether t he

excl usi on appl i es t o t he creat i on of secur i t y i nt er est s i n r ef unded

i nsurance pr emi ums under pr emi um f i nanci ng agr eement s. Cour t s

t ypi cal l y have concl uded t hat t he r i ght t o rei mbur sement of

unear ned pr emi ums i s an i nt er est ar i si ng under a pol i cy of

i nsur ance and, t hus, l i es wi t hi n t he excl usi on and out si de t he

scope of Ar t i cl e 9. See, e. g. , I n r e J I I Li qui dat i ng, I nc. , 344

B. R. 875, 882- 84 ( Bankr . N. D. I l l . 2006) ( ci t i ng cases) . Thei r

r easoni ng emphasi zes t hat t he Ar t i cl e 9 i nsur ance excl usi on

appl i es t o t he t r ansf er of "i nt er est s i nsepar abl e f r om i nsur ance

pol i ci es. " Mapl ewood Poul t r y, 2 B. R. at 555; see Dr abki n v. A. I .


11/25

- 11 -

Cr edi t Cor p. ( I n r e Aut o- Tr ai n Cor p. ) , 9 B. R. 159, 164- 65 ( Bankr.

D. D. C. 1981) .

Vi ewed agai nst t hi s backdr op, t he ass i gnment of a r i ght

t o payment under an i nsurance pol i cy, whi ch i s i nsepar abl e f r om

t he pol i cy i t sel f , f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he hear t l and of t he

excl usi on. One can scarcel y i magi ne a r i ght mor e cent r al t o an

i nsur ance cont r act t han t he pol i cyhol der ' s r i ght t o be pai d.

I ndeed, t he ver y pur pose of t he excl usi on was t o pl ace t hi s t ype

of f i nanci ng t r ansact i on beyond t he r each of Ar t i cl e 9. See 9A

Wi l l i amD. Hawkl and & Freder i ck H. Mi l l er , Uni f or mCommer ci al Code

Ser i es 9- 109: 12 [ Rev] ( 2001) ( expl ai ni ng t hat Ar t i cl e 9 pur posel y

excl udes t r ansact i ons i n whi ch debt or uses r i ght t o be pai d under

i nsur ance pol i cy as col l at er al ) .

Wheel i ng bal ks at t hi s seemi ngl y st r ai ght f or war d

appl i cat i on of t he i nsur ance excl usi on. I t submi t s t hat t her e i s

a di f f er ence bet ween a "cl ai m" under an i nsurance pol i cy and a

"r i ght t o payment " under an i nsurance pol i cy, and t hat t he

excl usi on appl i es onl y t o t he f or mer . I n i t s vi ew, t he f or mer i s

t he process by whi ch a pol i cyhol der demands payment wher eas t he

l at t er i s ei t her an "account " or a "payment i nt angi bl e" ( bot h of

whi ch ar e f or ms of col l at er al f al l i ng wi t hi n t he scope of Ar t i cl e

9) .

Thi s acr obat i c exerci se i n semant i cs does not get

Wheel i ng ver y f ar . Al t hough t here may be a di f f erence between a


12/25

- 12 -

cl ai m and a r i ght t o payment , Wheel i ng' s ar gument hi nges on a

t or t ur ed r eadi ng of t he i nsurance excl usi on. I t s ar gument assumes

t hat t he i nsur ance excl usi on appl i es onl y to cl ai ms under i nsur ance

pol i ci es, but t hat assumpt i on has qui t e pr oper l y been r ej ect ed by

a number of cour t s as cont r ar y t o the pl ai n l anguage of t he

excl usi on. See Am. Bank, 733 F. 3d at 614 ( col l ect i ng cases) . The

i mpet us f or t hi s chor us of r ej ect i on i s bot h compel l i ng and

obvi ous: by i t s t er ms, t he i nsur ance excl usi on appl i es br oadl y to

i nt er est s i n as wel l as t o cl ai ms under an i nsur ance pol i cy. See

Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 9- 1109( 4) ( h) . To ci nch t he mat t er , t he

or i gi nal comment ar y makes i t t r anspar ent l y cl ear t hat t he

i nsurance excl usi on was meant t o cover t he use of r i ght s under

i nsur ance pol i ci es as col l at er al . Thus, even i f we gr ant

Wheel i ng' s pr emi se t hat a cont i ngent r i ght t o payment ( di vi si bl e

f r om any associ at ed cl ai ms) came i nt o bei ng when t he Pol i cy was

i ssued, t hat r i ght t o payment i s i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned wi t h t he

Pol i cy i t sel f and pl ai nl y beyond t he r each of Ar t i cl e 9. 3

3 Ar t i cl e 9 does cont ai n an except i on f or i nsurance payment st hat const i t ut e pr oceeds of ot her col l at er al . See Me. Rev. St at .t i t . 11, 9- 1109( 4) ( h) . But t hat except i on r equi r es t hat acredi t or have a val i d secur i t y i nt er est i n some ot her col l at er alas to whi ch an i nsurance payment i s "proceeds. " See Mi l l er v.Nor west Bank Mi nn. , N. A. ( I n r e I nv. & Tax Ser vs. , I nc. ) , 148 B. R.571, 574 ( Bankr . D. Mi nn. 1992) . Because Wheel i ng' s asser t edi nt er est i n MMA' s cont i ngent r i ght t o payment under t he Pol i cy i si nval i d, i t does not have a secur i t y i nt er est i n any col l at er al ast o whi ch t he set t l ement payment can be consi dered pr oceeds. Seei d.


13/25

- 13 -

I n an apparent ef f or t t o cr eat e some space between MMA' s

r i ght t o payment of t he set t l ement f unds and t he Pol i cy i t sel f

( and t her eby escape t he gr asp of Ar t i cl e 9' s i nsur ance excl usi on) ,

Wheel i ng al t er nat i vel y suggest s t hat t he payment r i ght di d not

come i nt o exi st ence unt i l Tr avel er s agr eed t o pay t he set t l ement

amount t o MMA. But t hi s al t er nat i ve t heor y does not suf f i ci ent l y

di sent angl e t he r i ght t o r ecei ve payment under t he Pol i cy f r om an

i nt er est i n t he Pol i cy i t sel f . Even i f i t di d, t he t heor y woul d

f ai l as a mat t er of bankrupt cy l aw.

Under t he Bankrupt cy Code, a secur i t y i nt er est t hat i s

pr oper l y per f ect ed bef or e t he i ni t i at i on of bankrupt cy pr oceedi ngs

does not extend t o pr oper t y r i ght s acqui r ed by ei t her t he debt or

or t he bankrupt cy est at e af t er t he f i l i ng of t he bankrupt cy

pet i t i on. See 11 U. S. C. 552( a) . Her e, Tr avel er s di d not agr ee

t o pay MMA i n sat i sf act i on of i t s cl ai ms under t he Pol i cy unt i l

af t er MMA i nst i t ut ed bankr upt cy pr oceedi ngs. Under Wheel i ng' s

al t er nat i ve t heor y, t her ef or e, MMA' s r i ght t o payment woul d

const i t ut e post - pet i t i on pr oper t y t o whi ch Wheel i ng' s asser t ed

secur i t y i nt er est cannot at t ach. 4

4 For t he sake of compl eteness, we note that si nce Wheel i ngasser t s ( f or pur poses of t hi s ar gument ) t hat i t has an i nt er est i nMMA' s r i ght t o payment as or i gi nal col l at er al , t he Bankrupt cyCode' s except i on f or post - pet i t i on pr oceeds woul d be i nappl i cabl e.See 11 U. S. C. 552( b) .


14/25

- 14 -

Caught between t he Scyl l a of t he i nsurance excl usi on and

t he Char ybdi s of sect i on 552( a) , Wheel i ng makes t wo f ur t her

at t empt s t o convi nce us t hat we have over l ooked subt l e nuances

l ur ki ng i n t he penumbr as of Ar t i cl e 9. Nei t her at t empt i s

per suasi ve.

Fi r st , Wheel i ng l abor s t o const r uct a par al l el bet ween

Ar t i cl e 9' s i nsur ance excl usi on and Ar t i cl e 9' s t r eat ment of t or t

cl ai ms. But t hat par al l el i s mor e i magi ned t han r eal . Ar t i cl e 9

expr essl y excl udes secur i t y i nt er est s i n "cl ai m[ s] ar i si ng i n

t or t , " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 9- 1109( 4) ( l) , but "once a cl ai m

ar i si ng i n t or t has been set t l ed and r educed t o a cont r act ual

obl i gat i on t o pay, t he r i ght t o payment becomes a payment

i nt angi bl e and ceases t o be a cl ai m ar i si ng i n t or t , " i d. 9- 1109

cmt . 15. Unl i ke a t or t cl ai m, however , t he r i ght t o payment under

an i nsur ance pol i cy i s al ways i n t he nat ur e of "a cont r act ual

obl i gat i on t o pay. " And at any r at e, t he i nsur ance excl usi on

appl i es br oadl y to i nt er est s i n and cl ai ms under an i nsur ance

pol i cy, wher eas t he t or t excl usi on appl i es sol el y t o cl ai ms. The

t wo excl usi ons ar e si mpl y not f ai r congener s.

Wheel i ng' s second ef f or t i s no mor e r ewar di ng. I t

i nsi st s t hat i nt er pr et i ng t he i nsur ance excl usi on t o excl ude

payment r i ght s under i nsur ance pol i ci es cont r avenes t he i nt ent of

bot h t he dr af t er s of t he UCC and t he Mai ne l egi sl at ur e. But t he


15/25

- 15 -

opposi t e i s t r ue: i t i s Wheel i ng' s posi t i on t hat i s at odds wi t h

l egi sl at i ve i nt ent . We expl ai n br i ef l y.

Al t hough Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9 expanded t he number and t ype

of t r ansact i ons subj ect t o t he st at ut e i n an endeavor t o br i ng

gr eat er cer t ai nt y t o t he l aw of secur i t i zat i on t he dr af t er s

wi dened t he def i ni t i on of "account " and added a new category of

col l at er al cal l ed "payment i nt angi bl es" t hese changes by no means

evi nced an i nt ent t o br i ng al l payment st r eams wi t hi n t he scope of

Ar t i cl e 9. Per t i nent l y f or pr esent pur poses, t he dr af t er s chose

t o r et ai n t he br oadl y wor ded i nsurance excl usi on wi t h mi ni mal

modi f i cat i ons ( none of whi ch i s hel pf ul t o Wheel i ng) .

Wheel i ng' s suggest i on t hat t he r evi sed def i ni t i on of

"account " i ncl udes t he r i ght t o payment under an i nsurance pol i cy

i s wi shf ul t hi nki ng. Even t hough an "account " i s now def i ned t o

i ncl ude "a r i ght t o payment of a monet ar y obl i gat i on . . . [ f ] or

a pol i cy of i nsur ance i ssued or t o be i ssued, " i d. 9- 1102( 2) ( c) ,

t hat l anguage has not hi ng t o do wi t h t he pol i cyhol der ' s r i ght t o

payment under an i nsurance cont r act . Rather , t he quoted l anguage

r ef er s t o an i nsur er ' s r i ght t o be pai d i n connect i on wi t h t he

sal e of an i nsur ance pol i cy. Had t he dr af t er s i nt ended t he t er m

"account " t o i ncl ude i nsur ance payout s, t he def i ni t i on woul d have

r ef err ed t o payment under an i nsurance pol i cy i nst ead of payment

f or t he i ssuance of a pol i cy. Af t er al l , i t woul d be cur i ous f or

a pol i cyhol der t o be pai d f or t he i ssuance of i t s pol i cy.


16/25

- 16 -

Our const r uct i on of t hi s l anguage i s but t r essed by t he

f act t hat most of t he ot her i t ems i ncl uded wi t hi n t he meani ng of

"account " cor r espond t o r ecei vabl es t hat a commer ci al debt or i s

l i kel y t o gener at e i n t he cour se of i t s busi ness. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 553 U. S. 285, 294 ( 2008) ( expl ai ni ng t hat under

canon of nosci t ur a soci i s words and phr ases ar e "gi ven more

pr eci se cont ent by t he nei ghbor i ng wor ds wi t h whi ch [ t hey ar e]

associ at ed") . For exampl e, t he t er m "account " i ncl udes

r ecei vabl es r el at ed t o t he sal e or l ease of pr oper t y, see Me. Rev.

St at . t i t . 11, 9- 1102( 2) ( a) , t he pr ovi si on of ser vi ces, see i d.

9- 1102( 2) ( b) , t he sal e of ener gy, see i d. 9- 1102( 2) ( e) , and

t he use of char ge car ds, see i d. 9- 1102( 2) ( g) .

Any l i nger i ng doubt as t o whet her t he def i ni t i on of

"account " i ncl udes a pol i cyhol der ' s r i ght t o payment under an

i nsur ance pol i cy i s di spel l ed by Ar t i cl e 9' s t r eat ment of "heal t h-

car e- i nsur ance r ecei vabl es. " Ar t i cl e 9 expr essl y car ves such

r ecei vabl es out of t he i nsur ance excl usi on, see i d. 9- 1109( 4) ( h) ,

and expl i ci t l y i dent i f i es t hem as a speci es of "account , " see i d.

9- 1102( 2) . To accompl i sh t hi s si ngul ar t r eat ment , a heal t h-

car e- i nsur ance r ecei vabl e i s def i ned as "an i nt er est i n or cl ai m

under a pol i cy of i nsurance t hat i s a r i ght t o payment of a monet ar y

obl i gat i on f or heal t h- car e goods or ser vi ces pr ovi ded or t o be

pr ovi ded. " I d. 9- 1102( 46) . We t hi nk t hat i t i s no coi nci dence

t hat t hi s def i ni t i on r ef er s par t i cul ar l y t o i nt er est s i n and cl ai ms


17/25

- 17 -

under heal t h- car e- i nsur ance pol i ci es. Sol el y as a r esul t of t hi s

added l anguage, heal t h- car e- i nsur ance r ecei vabl es i ncl ude a

"pat i ent ' s r i ght t o payment under [ hi s] heal t h- car e i nsur ance

pol i cy. " St even L. Har r i s & Char l es W. Mooney, J r . , How Successf ul

Was t he Revi si on of UCC Ar t i cl e 9?: Ref l ect i ons of t he Repor t er s,

74 Chi . - Kent L. Rev. 1357, 1376 ( 1999) . That r i ght i s deemed t o

be an "account " despi t e t he f act t hat "t he pat i ent ' s r i ght t o

payment i s not of a t ype t hat i s i ncl uded . . . i n t he br oader

def i ni t i on of [ account ] i n Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9. " I d. No compar abl e

l anguage appl i es t o cl ai ms f or payment under ot her t ypes of

i nsur ance pol i ci es.

The UCC' s si ngul ar t r eat ment of heal t h- car e- i nsur ance

cl ai ms i s t el l i ng. I f t he t er m "account " al r eady i ncl uded a

pol i cyhol der ' s r i ght t o payment under an i nsur ance pol i cy, t her e

woul d have been no r eason at al l f or t he dr af t er s of Ar t i cl e 9 t o

exci se heal t h- car e- i nsur ance r ecei vabl es f r om t he i nsur ance

excl usi on and add speci f i c l anguage desi gned t o br i ng t hose

r ecei vabl es and onl y t hose r ecei vabl es wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on

of "account . " Ther e i s a gener al canon of st at ut or y const r uct i on

whi ch t eaches t hat cour t s shoul d const r ue st at ut es t o avoi d

r ender i ng super f l uous any wor ds or phr ases t her ei n. See, e. g. ,

Ast or i a Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass' n v. Sol i mi no, 501 U. S. 104, 112

( 1991) ; St r omber g- Car l son Cor p. v. St at e Tax Assessor , 765 A. 2d

566, 569 ( Me. 2001) . That canon appl i es f our - squar e her e:


18/25

- 18 -

accept i ng Wheel i ng' s ambi t i ous def i ni t i on of "account " woul d make

t ot al l y r edundant t he l anguage of Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9 deal i ng wi t h

heal t h- car e- i nsur ance r ecei vabl es. Ther e i s no j ust i f i cat i on f or

cr eat i ng such a r edundancy by j udi ci al f i at . 5

Wheel i ng' s back- up posi t i on i s t hat t he r i ght t o payment

under an i nsur ance pol i cy const i t ut es a "payment i nt angi bl e" and,

as such, el udes t he i nsur ance excl usi on. Her e, t oo, Wheel i ng' s

r each exceeds i t s gr asp.

A "payment i nt angi bl e" i s def i ned as " a gener al

i nt angi bl e under whi ch t he account debt or ' s pr i nci pal obl i gat i on

i s a monet ar y obl i gat i on. " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 11, 9- 1102( 61) .

Though Wheel i ng' s t hesi s mi ght have a pat i na of pl ausi bi l i t y i f

one wer e t o vi ew t he def i ni t i on of "payment i nt angi bl e" i n a

vacuum, t hat pat i na di ssol ves under t he gl ar e of car ef ul scr ut i ny.

I t i s common gr ound t hat when gener al and speci f i c pr ovi si ons of

a st at ut e conf l i ct, t he speci f i c pr ovi si on cont r ol s. See, e. g. ,

HCSC- Laundr y v. Uni t ed St at es, 450 U. S. 1, 6 ( 1981) ( per cur i am) ;

Zi egl er v. Am. Mai ze- Prods. Co. , 658 A. 2d 219, 222 ( Me. 1995) .

5 We add, mor eover , t hat Wheel i ng' s ar gument s aboutl egi sl at i ve i nt ent ar e f ur t her cont r adi cted by t he hi st or y of t heAr t i cl e 9 r evi si on pr ocess. The dr af t er s of Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9or i gi nal l y vot ed t o el i mi nat e t he i nsur ance excl usi on al t oget herbut , i n t he end, set t l ed f or br i ngi ng heal t h- car e- i nsur ancer ecei vabl es wi t hi n t he ambi t of t he st at ut e. See Har r i s & Mooney,supr a, at 1374- 76. Adopt i ng Wheel i ng' s sel f - ser vi ng r eadi ng ofRevi sed Ar t i cl e 9 woul d gut t he i nsur ance excl usi on,not wi t hst andi ng t he dr af t er s' deci si on t o l eave i t most l y i nt act .


19/25

- 19 -

Accor di ngl y, Ar t i cl e 9' s gener al def i ni t i onal l anguage must bow t o

i t s speci f i c excl usi on of r i ght s under a pol i cy of i nsur ance.

Wheel i ng' s exhor t at i on t hat we shoul d r each a cont r ar y

r esul t on pol i cy gr ounds i s empt y r het or i c. I t s war ni ng t hat

l eavi ng i nsur ance f i nanci ng t r ansact i ons t o t he vagar i es of t he

common l aw wi l l pr oduce uncer t ai nt y and render i nsur ance payment s

an under - ut i l i zed f or mof col l at er al i s ol d hat . See, e. g. , Andr ew

Ver st ei n, Bad Pol i cy f or Good Pol i ci es: Ar t i cl e 9' s I nsur ance

Excl usi on, 17 Conn. I ns. L. J . 287 ( 2011) ( advocat i ng el i mi nat i on

of i nsur ance excl usi on) . The dr af t er s of Revi sed Ar t i cl e 9 wer e

wel l awar e of t hese pur por t ed danger s, yet chose t o r et ai n t he

excl usi on. See i d. at 341- 43; see al so Har r i s & Mooney, supr a, at

1374- 75 & n. 75. The appr opr i at e f or um i n whi ch t o chal l enge t hat

pol i cy j udgment i s t he Mai ne l egi sl at ur e, not t he f eder al cour t s.

The upshot i s t hat t he cr eat i on of a secur i t y i nter est

i n a r i ght t o payment under an i nsur ance pol i cy f al l s, under

Mai ne' s ver si on of t he UCC, squar el y wi t hi n Ar t i cl e 9' s i nsur ance

excl usi on. We hol d, t her ef or e, t hat t he cour t s bel ow di d not er r

i n r ej ect i ng Wheel i ng' s st r ai ned ef f or t t o r ead t he i nsur ance

excl usi on i nt o obl i vi on.

B. Treatment Under Common Law.

Havi ng cor r ect l y f ound not onl y t hat Ar t i cl e 9 was

i napposi t e but al so t hat no ot her Mai ne st at ut e gover ns t he taki ng

of secur i t y i nt er est s i n i nsur ance r i ght s, t he bankr upt cy cour t


20/25

- 20 -

pr oceeded t o concl ude t hat Wheel i ng had f ai l ed t o per f ect a

secur i t y i nterest under Mai ne common l aw. See MMA I , 2014 WL

1491301, at *2. The BAP agr eed. See MMA I I , 521 B. R. at 714.

Bat t l i ng on, Wheel i ng chal l enges t hi s concl usi on.

Because Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t has not addr essed t he

common- l aw r equi r ement s f or per f ect i ng a secur i t y i nt er est i n

i nsurance r i ght s, our dut y i s t o make an i nf or med pr ophecy as t o

how t hat cour t woul d r ul e i f f aced wi t h t he i ssue. See Bos. Reg' l

Med. Ct r . , I nc. v. Reynol ds ( I n r e Bos. Reg' l Med. Ct r . , I nc. ) ,

410 F. 3d 100, 108 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . I n vat i ci nat i ng t he cour se

t hat a st at e cour t l i kel y woul d f ol l ow, we begi n wi t h set t l ed

pr i nci pl es of st at e l aw and t hen consi der per suasi ve aut hor i t y

f r om ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons and t he t eachi ngs of l ear ned t r eat i ses.

See i d. ; Bl i nzl er v. Mar r i ot t I nt ' l , I nc. , 81 F. 3d 1148, 1151 ( 1st

Ci r . 1996) . Whi l e conduct i ng t hi s i nqui r y, we pay par t i cul ar heed

t o pr i or publ i c pol i cy pr onouncement s emanat i ng f r om t he st at e' s

hi ghest cour t , see Andr ew Robi nson I nt ' l , I nc. v. Har t f or d Fi r e

I ns. Co. , 547 F. 3d 48, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) , and assume that t he

st at e t r i bunal woul d sel ect a r ul e t hat best i mpl ement s t hose

pol i ci es, see Bos. Reg' l Med. Ct r . , 410 F. 3d at 108.

At common l aw, a cr edi t or cl ai mi ng a secur i t y i nt er est

t hr ough a chat t el mor t gage was r equi r ed t o per f ect i t s i nt er est by

t aki ng possessi on of t he col l at er al . See Pr od. Cr edi t Ass' n v.

Kent , 56 A. 2d 631, 632 ( Me. 1948) ; Peaks v. Smi t h, 71 A. 884, 886


21/25

- 21 -

( Me. 1908) . The Mai ne l egi sl at ur e l at er pr ovi ded t hat per f ect i on

coul d al so be accompl i shed by recor di ng t he chat t el mort gage wi t h

t he appr opr i at e muni ci pal of f i ci al . See Pr od. Cr edi t Ass' n, 56

A. 2d at 632; Peaks, 71 A. at 886. I n i nst ances i n whi ch one method

of per f ect i on pr oved ei t her i mpossi bl e or i mpr act i cabl e, a

cr edi t or had t o compl y wi t h t he ot her i n or der t o achi eve pr i or i t y

st at us. See Pr od. Cr edi t Ass' n, 56 A. 2d at 633.

The pur pose of r equi r i ng possessi on or r ecor dat i on was

t o pr event t he cr eat i on of secret l i ens and ensur e t hat bona f i de

pur chaser s as wel l as cr edi t or s wer e gi ven f ai r not i ce of t he

encumbr ance. See i d. at 632; Peaks, 71 A. at 886. Thi s pur pose

i s shar ed by t he Ar t i cl e 9 r egi me, see Mapl ewood Poul t r y, 2 B. R.

at 555, whi ch now governs most secur ed t r ansact i ons i n Mai ne.

Wher e i nt angi bl e col l at er al ( such as a payment r i ght

under an i nsur ance pol i cy) i s i nvol ved, possessi on i s not a

pr act i cal met hod of per f ect i on. Nor does any par t y suggest t hat

Mai ne has a f i l i ng syst emt hat al l ows t he r ecor dat i on of i nt er est s

i n i nsur ance pol i ci es. Yet t he bankrupt cy cour t has concl uded

t hat , i n a si t uat i on si mi l ar t o t he si t uat i on her e, a credi t or

coul d st i l l compl y wi t h Mai ne common l aw even wi t hout r ecor di ng

i t s i nt er est or t aki ng possessi on of t he i nsur ance pol i cy. See A-

1 Cr edi t Cor p. v. Bi g Squaw Mt . Cor p. ( I n r e Bi g Squaw Mt . Cor p. ) ,

122 B. R. 831, 838- 39 ( Bankr . D. Me. 1990) . Thi s i s a sensi bl e

vi ew of t he l aw and we bel i eve t hat Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t woul d


22/25

- 22 -

not i nvar i abl y r equi r e ei t her possessi on or r ecor dat i on as a si ne

qua non t o t he per f ect i on of a secur i t y i nt er est i n an i nsur ance

pol i cy. I n al l event s, t he t r ust ee does not ar gue t o t he cont r ar y.

But t hi s concl usi on get s us onl y par t - way home: i t l eaves

open t he quest i on of what Mai ne l aw actual l y r equi r es f or t he

per f ect i on of such an i nt er est . Thi s case does not demand a

def i ni t i ve answer t o t hat quest i on; pr i nci pl es of f eder al i sm and

comi t y ar gue convi nci ngl y f or cabi ni ng a f eder al cour t ' s

pr edi ct i ons about how a st at e' s hi ghest cour t wi l l answer novel

l egal quest i ons as nar r owl y as possi bl e. See Nol an v. CN8, 656

F. 3d 71, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Moor es v. Gr eenber g, 834 F. 2d

1105, 1112 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) . Fol l owi ng t hat wi se pr ecept , i t

suf f i ces t o say her e t hat t he Mai ne Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t woul d,

i n our vi ew, adopt a per f ect i on r ul e r equi r i ng somet hi ng mor e t han

what Wheel i ng di d.

Ref i ned t o bare essence, Wheel i ng ar gues her e f or a rul e

of per f ect i on upon creat i on ( t hat i s, f or a r ul e t hat t he ver y

creat i on of a secur i t y i nt er est per f ect s t hat i nt er est ) . Al t hough

aut omat i c per f ect i on paradi gms ar e not unknown, such paradi gms ar e

not t he norm. See J ames J . Whi t e & Rober t S. Summers, Uni f orm

Commerci al Code 23- 5 ( 6t h ed. 2010) . Nor i s t here any sound

r eason t o t hi nk t hat Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t woul d embr ace such a

par adi gm. Af t er al l , a pr i mar y goal of bot h Ar t i cl e 9 and Mai ne' s

pr e- UCC per f ect i on r ul es i s t o ensur e t hat ot her cr edi t or s have


23/25

- 23 -

not i ce of t he secur i t y i nt er est . An aut omat i c per f ect i on r ul e

woul d f r ust r at e t hat goal by maki ng i r r el evant t he exi st ence vel

non of publ i cl y avai l abl e evi dence of asser t ed secur i t y i nt er est s.

Cf . Bi g Squaw Mt . , 122 B. R. at 837 ( suggest i ng t hat mere r et ent i on

of secur i t y agr eement was i nsuf f i ci ent under Mai ne l aw t o per f ect

secur i t y i nt er est i n i nsur ance pol i cy) . Gi ven Mai ne' s wel l -

est abl i shed publ i c pol i cy di sf avor i ng secret l i ens, see, e. g. ,

Pr od. Cr edi t Ass' n, 56 A. 2d at 632- 33; Shaw v. Wi l shi r e, 65 Me.

485, 490- 92 ( 1876) , we ar e conf i dent t hat Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t

wi l l r equi r e some addi t i onal st ep, desi gned t o f ur ni sh f ai r not i ce

t o ot her cr edi t or s, beyond t he mer e execut i on of a secur i t y

agr eement cr eat i ng an i nt er est i n the r i ght t o payment under an

i nsur ance pol i cy.

Thi s get s t he grease f r om t he goose. I n t hi s i nst ance,

Wheel i ng di d not hi ng t o per f ect i t s cl ai med secur i t y i nt er est ot her

t han f i l i ng a UCC- 1 f i nanci ng st at ement i n Del awar e. That

f i nanci ng st at ement descr i bed t he col l at er al as " [ a] l l of [ MMA' s]

i nvent or y, account s and payment i nt angi bl es ( as t hose t er ms ar e

def i ned i n t he Uni f or m Commer ci al Code) . " Those f or ms of

col l at er al , as def i ned i n t he UCC, do not i ncl ude r i ght s under an

i nsur ance pol i cy. See supr a Par t I I . A. And t hough t he f i nanci ng

st at ement ment i ons i nsur ance as a f or m of pr oceeds, i t does not

i dent i f y i nsur ance r i ght s as a f or m of or i gi nal col l at er al . I t

f ol l ows, we t hi nk, t hat t he f i nanci ng st at ement was whol l y


24/25

- 24 -

i nadequat e t o gi ve f ai r not i ce ( or , i ndeed, any not i ce at al l ) t o

ot her s of Wheel i ng' s pur por t ed i nt er est i n t he Pol i cy. 6 We

t her ef or e concl ude t hat Wheel i ng never per f ect ed i t s secur i t y

i nterest under Mai ne common l aw.

III. CONCLUSION

Thi s case i nvol ves col l at er al t hat i s, by means of a

cl ear l y ar t i cul at ed excl usi on set f or t h i n Mai ne' s ver si on of t he

UCC, out si de t he scope of Ar t i cl e 9. That excl usi on pl ai nl y

f or ecl oses at t empt s t o cr eat e a secur i t y i nt er est i n "a cl ai munder

a pol i cy of i nsur ance. " Wheel i ng does not asser t a di r ect i nt er est

i n t he i nsur ance pol i cy i ssued by Travel er s t o MMA but , r at her ,

asser t s a r i ght t o r ecei ve t he onl y usef ul val ue of t he Pol i cy: a

cl ai m f or payment under i t . However , t he i nsur ance excl usi on

encompasses al l r i ght s t o payment under i nsur ance pol i ci es. I t

f ol l ows t hat a secur i t y i nt er est i n "account s" and "payment

i nt angi bl es" ( l i ke t hat hel d by Wheel i ng) does not at t ach t o such

r i ght s .

6 Apar t f r om f i l i ng t he f i nanci ng st at ement a st ep t hat wasmeani ngl ess i n t er ms of pr ovi di ng f ai r not i ce t o ot her s t hatWheel i ng was cl ai mi ng a secur i t y i nt er est i n a r i ght t o paymentunder an i nsurance pol i cy i ssued t o MMA Wheel i ng took no ot herst eps t o per f ect i t s asser t ed secur i t y i nt er est even t hough suchst eps were f easi bl e. For exampl e, Wheel i ng coul d have i nf ormedTr avel er s of i t s i nter est pr i or t o t he accr ual of t he cl ai m andt aken a di r ect assi gnment , or r equi r ed MMA t o name i t as a l osspayee under t he Pol i cy as a condi t i on f or est abl i shi ng t he l i ne ofcredi t .


25/25

I n t he l ast anal ysi s, t he l et t er of t he i nsur ance

excl usi on does not per mi t t he hai r spl i t t i ng t hat Wheel i ng woul d

have us under t ake. I nst ead, t he excl usi on, pr oper l y r ead, makes

i t pel l uci d t hat t he UCC does not f ur ni sh t he r ul es f or t aki ng or

per f ect i ng secur i t y i nt er est s i n f ut ur e i nsur ance payout s. Her e,

t hose r ul es must be di st i l l ed f r om Mai ne common l aw. And f or t he

r easons el uci dat ed above, we f i nd t hat Wheel i ng' s meager ef f or t s

at per f ect i on, whi ch i n pr act i cal t er ms gave no not i ce at al l t o

ot her credi t or s of i t s pur por t ed secur i t y i nt er est i n t he i nsur ance

set t l ement pr oceeds at i ssue here, woul d be deemed i mpui ssant by

Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t .

We need go no f ur t her . We hol d t hat t he cour t s bel ow

di d not er r i n concl udi ng t hat MMA was ent i t l ed t o the pr oposed

set t l ement payment f r ee and cl ear of Wheel i ng' s assert ed secur i t y

i nt eres t .

Affirmed.

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway v. Keach, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents