The respondent bank sought indemnity under an insurance policy for losses arising from a Ponzi scheme operated by a customer.
The bank obtained partial summary judgment on the interpretation of the "direct financial loss" element of the fidelity coverage section.
The appellants (insurers) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment on a constituent element of a claim rather than on the claim itself, failed to interpret the policy as a whole, adopted a theory of liability not advanced by the parties, and misconstrued the relief sought by the appellants.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and directed the action to proceed to trial.
