Travelers Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., No. 07-20157, involved an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that defendant-insurer was required to defend and indemnify a shopping mall against claims in an underlying personal injury action. The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for plaintiff, holding that 1) the district court properly concluded that the contractual provision requiring defendant-store to include the mall as an additional insured under the policy procured from defendant was enforceable, but 2) the mall had coverage under both plaintiff's and defendant's insurance policies, and because the "other insurance" provisions conflicted, each insurer needed to share in the costs of underlying litigation against the mall.
Medina Cty. Envt'l. Action Ass'n., No. 09-60108, concerned a petition for review of a Construction and Operation Exemption Decision (the Decision) entered by one of the respondents, the Surface Transportation Board (STB). The court of appeals denied the petition on the grounds that 1) STB's refusal to consider the proposed development of the entire tract at issue as an "interrelated action" did not render the Decision arbitrary and capricious; 2) petitioner did not show that the future phrases of the quarry were free from regulatory and financial contingencies such that their occurrence would be reasonably foreseeable, much less reasonably certain; and 3) petitioner did not show that respondents' reliance on certain mitigation measures in support of their conclusions as to jeopardy rendered the Decision arbitrary and capricious.