In Re Eli Witt Co.

213 B.R. 396, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 94, 38 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1510, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1607, 1997 WL 618978
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedAugust 28, 1997
DocketBankruptcy 96-15441-8P1
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 213 B.R. 396 (In Re Eli Witt Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Eli Witt Co., 213 B.R. 396, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 94, 38 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1510, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1607, 1997 WL 618978 (Fla. 1997).

Opinion

ORDER ON APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIM AND DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge.

THIS IS a yet to be confirmed Chapter 11 case, and the matter under consideration is an Application for Allowance of Administrative Expense Claim pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Application is filed by the United States Fire Insurance Company (Insurance Company) in the Chapter 11 case filed by The Eh Witt Company (Debtor). The Application is challenged by the Debtor who filed an Objection to the Application contending that the claim of the Insurance Company is not entitled to administrative expense priority pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In its Application, the Insurance Company requests an allowance of an administrative expense claim against the Debtor’s estate for expenses incurred by the Insurance Company in providing the Debtor with insurance coverage during he Debtor’s bankruptcy case. The Insurance Company asserts an administrative expense claim in the approximate amount of $3,900,000.00 for the projected total amount of advanced deductible payments for which the Insurance Company have not been and will not be reimbursed. This amount includes (a) claims that the Insurance Company actually paid arising from *398 prepetition accidents; (b) estimated' claims that the Insurance Company may pay in the future arising from prepetition accidents; (c) claims that the Insurance Company paid arising from postpetition accidents; and (d) estimated claims that the Insurance Company may pay in the future arising from post-petition accidents. The Insurance Company also seeks an administrative expense claim for any missed premium payments on the grounds that this amount represents a post-petition expense in providing insurance coverage which is an actual and necessary cost of preserving the Debtor’s estate, thus, entitled as a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).

The Court heard argument of counsel, has considered the record including the stipulated facts, and based on the foregoing, now finds and concludes as follows:

For several years prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 ease, the Insurance Company serviced the insurance needs of the Debtor and provided the Debtor with several insurance policies, including a workers’ compensation policy. At the time relevant, the Debtor was covered by Workers’ Compensation Policy No. 406-005174, which was issued prepetition, and the Debtor is still covered by this policy. Under this policy, the Debtor is required to pay the premium installment payments specified in the insurance contract. The Insurance Company is required to pay the claims in full on behalf of the Debtor, if found to be valid, including the deductible payments ultimately required to be paid by the Debtor (Advanced Deductible Payments). The policy also requires the Debtor to reimburse the Insurance Company for the Advanced Deductible Payments up to $250,000 per occurrence. Although the Debtor has kept current on its obligation to pay the premium installment payments, it has failed to pay the additional charges for processing claims and has also failed to reimburse the Insurance Company for the Advanced Deductible Payments made for claims actually paid out since November 12,1996, the date of the commencement of this case, for on the job injuries, incurred by employees of the Debtor insured by the policy, which have occurred postpetition. The relevant portion of the workers’ compensation policy provides that the Debtor must reimburse the Advanced Deductibles paid by the Insurance Company, up to $250,000 per occurrence, within 30 days from the date the invoice is sent by the Insurance Company to the Debt- or. ■

The Insurance Company’s basis for its claim is this last recited provision of the workers’ compensation contract. According to the Insurance Company, its “claim” arose when it made the demand for reimbursement and not at the time when the employee’s accident or injury occurred. The Insurance Company points out a well recognized and established proposition that the insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the carrier, and that it should be construed by interpreting the clear terms bargained for by the parties with the plain language of the contract governing.

It is the contention of the Insurance Company that its postpetition demands for reimbursement arising from prepetition accidents constitute an administrative expense claim because the invoice mailed postpetition is an indispensable element of its “claim.” As part of its administrative claim, the Insurance Company claims approximately $607,938 in insurance claims for which the Insurance Company demanded reimbursement postpe-tition but which arose from accidents or occurrences which occurred prepetition.

In addition, the Insurance Company asserts that it is entitled to an administrative expense claim for claims it estimates it will have to pay in the future due to accidents or occurrences which have already occurred prepetition, but for which claims have not yet been paid nor will be paid by confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization. Further, the Insurance Company asserts an administrative expense claim for claims it calculates it will have to pay in the future due to accidents or occurrences which occurred postpetition, but which it will not have actually paid by confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization.

The Debtor concedes that the Insurance Company is entitled to the allowance of an administrative expense claim for Advanced Deductible Payments actually paid on behalf of the Debtor, but only for *399 claims made by covered employees for on the job injuries which occurred postpetition. However, the Debtor contends that the Insurance Company is not entitled to an administrative expense claim for Advanced Deductible Payments made postpe-tition or invoiced postpetition if the payment was made on account of a claim by a covered employee for an on the job injury which occurred prepetition. According to the Debtor, the Insurance Company’s claim for these payments are only general unsecured claim because its claim arose prepetition i.e. when the injury occurred. The Debtor also contends that the claim of the Insurance Company based on an estimate of its possible future liability is grossly exaggerated and highly speculative. Thus, the Debtor asserts that it would be improper to allow any part of the estimated, potential future claims because of the radically changed circumstances.

In this connection, the Debtor points out that since the commencement of this case, the Debtor has reduced the number of its employees from approximately 800 employees down to fifteen employees, thus, greatly reducing the Insurance Company’s possible future exposure to workers’ compensation claims. Based on the foregoing, the Debtor contends that since the Petition was filed on November 12, 1996, through April 30, 1997, the Insurance Company has paid out a total of only $109,198 in Advanced Deductible Payments on account of accidents or occurrences which have occurred postpetition, and this amount is the only amount which might be construed to be an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 B.R. 396, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 94, 38 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1510, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1607, 1997 WL 618978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eli-witt-co-flmb-1997.