Alexei Kuzmin v. Talisman Marine Insurance Protected Cell Inc. d/b/a Talisman Marine Insurance Company Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01395
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 ALEXEI KUZMIN, CASE NO. C25-1395-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 TALISMAN MARINE INSURANCE PROTECTED CELL INC. d/b/a TALISMAN 13 MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY INC., et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 23) to strike 17 Defendants Talisman Marine Insurance Protected Cell Inc. (d/b/a Talisman Insurance Company 18 Inc.) and Talisman Insurance Company Inc.’s (collectively “Talisman”) answer and 19 counterclaim. Having thoroughly considered the briefing and relevant record, the Court 20 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons explained herein. 21 This is an insurance coverage action. According to the complaint, Plaintiff owns the 22 commercial fishing vessel F/V MYSTERY, which grounded about 30 miles west of Sand Point, 23 Alaska. (Dkt. No. 17 at 3, 8.) After its grounding, the vessel capsized, broke into pieces, and 24 washed ashore. (Id. at 8.) At the time, Plaintiff had insured the vessel, through Talisman, for 25 $1,000,000 in protection and indemnity (“P&I”) coverage, and $800,000 in hull and machinery 26 1 (“H&M”) coverage. Talisman was not admitted or authorized by Alaska to issue such coverage, 2 nevertheless, it did. (Id. at 7–9.) Following the incident, Talisman denied Plaintiff’s P&I and 3 H&M insurance claim. (Id.) Plaintiff then sued both Talisman and the insurance brokers 4 involved in binding coverage. (See Dkt. No. 1.) According to a First Amended Complaint, 5 Plaintiff seeks damages exceeding coverage amount(s). (See Dkt. No. 17 at 30.) 6 Talisman recently answered and counterclaimed to Plaintiff’s suit (Dkt. No. 20). Before 7 doing so, though, it did not lodge an appearance bond. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 3, 11, 20.) Thus, 8 Plaintiff moves to strike Talisman’s answer and counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff’s motion is 9 based on Alaska insurance law, which provides that non-admitted insurers must post a bond prior 10 to filing a pleading. AS 21.33.031. In moving to strike, Plaintiff also seeks an order containing 11 findings that Alaska law applies here and thus, such a bond is required, along with a directive to 12 Talisman to post the bond before refiling its pleading. (Dkt. No. 23-1.) 13 To its credit, Talisman does not dispute that Alaska insurance law applies. (See Dkt. No. 14 28 at 3.)1 Nor does Talisman dispute that it is an unadmitted carrier in Alaska. (Compare Dkt. 15 No. 23 at 5, with Dkt. No. 28 at 7–8.) Instead, Talisman suggests that, under Alaska law, an 16 appearance bond is not required for a wet marine and transportation insurance policy like the one 17 at issue here. (See Dkt. No. 28 at 6–9) (citing AS 21.33.042(8)). The argument is not well taken. 18 Alaska law is not ambiguous. Chapter 33 of Title 21 of the 2024 Alaska statutes governs 19 unauthorized insurers. And section .031 articulates the duties and rights of such an insurer if 20 named as a defendant in an action governed by Alaska insurance law. And the provision requires 21 that such a bond be lodged before the carrier file a responsive pleading. AS 21.33.031. Whereas, 22 section .042, which Talisman relies on in its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, (see Dkt. No. 28 at 23 6–9), only applies to suits brought by such insurers. AS 21.33.042. Thus, it is of no import here. 24

25 1 This position is consistent with relevant federal authority. See Aqua-Marine Constructors, Inc. v. Banks, 110 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding that state law applies to maritime insurance 26 disputes, so long as it does not “offend federal admiralty prerogatives”). 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s 2 motion (Dkt. No. 23), and ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Talisman’s answer and counterclaim (Dkt. No. 20) shall be STRICKEN. 4 2. Talisman has 14 days from the date of this order to file a pleading responsive to the 5 First Amended Complaint. 6 3. Before Talisman may do so, it must lodge an appearance bond compliant with AS 7 21.33.031 in the amount of $1.8 million.2 8 4. If Talisman does not do so (within the required timeline), Plaintiff may move for Rule 9 55 default. 10 11 It is so ORDERED this 28th day of October 2025. A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 2 Plaintiff asks that the Court direct Talisman to post a $14 million bond. This is based, in part, on Plaintiff’s pleaded damages, which exceed $10 million. (Dkt. No. 17 at 30.) But, at present, 26 damages are wholly unproven. Thus, a bond corresponding to this amount would be unjust.