In a late night filing, Knight Specialty Insurance attempts to justify its Trump bond. iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
So CPLR 2502 has specific statutory language about the issuers being qualified to execute the surety bond *in NY state.* The excess lines provision Knight relies on expressly deals with insurers doing business *outside* the state. And Knight’s argument fails to reconcile the two.
+ it took about ten seconds from opening the account security agreement to find a significant drafting error, which makes the signature page look like it belongs to a different agreement (DJT Jr’s attestation identifies the wrong secured party—a Chubb co.) iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
@nycsouthpaw Is this gonna fly? Or will LJ crush this?
@nycsouthpaw And their $ is in the Caymans... fails the bond requirements in total
@nycsouthpaw So what happens when the court rejects it?
@nycsouthpaw Reject & proceed to enforce judgement until they DO dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. These documents have to be perfect.
@nycsouthpaw Flashbacks to the Trumps blaming the banks for taking their valuation documentation at face value. “The State should’ve done due diligence and known the bond was flawed…their own fault…we did nothing wrong…”
@nycsouthpaw It's a delay tactic isn't it? The documentation seems lacking.
@nycsouthpaw The NY reg sounds like a pretty standard rule. In California, we allow both admitted insurers (licensed in CA) and non-admitted insurers (not licensed in CA) to issue appeal bonds, but the amount of security required w/ a non-admitted/excess lines company is substantially higher.
@nycsouthpaw Reassuring to see this great legal mind as a co-signer
@nycsouthpaw This has the feel of “this statute imposes requirements for qualified insurers to post bonds, but we aren’t qualified so the requirements don’t apply to us”