explaining that “claims made” policies “are commonly used as professional liability insurance because malpractice by a professional *580 such as a doctor or an architect may not lead to the assertion of a claim until years after expiration of the actual insurance policy ... [and these] policies allow the insurer to “close its books” on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “claims made” policies “are commonly used as professional liability insurance because malpractice by a professional *580 such as a doctor or an architect may not lead to the assertion of a claim until years after expiration of the actual insurance policy ... [and these] policies allow the insurer to “close its books” on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies
- holding that, to preserve error for appeal, “the litigant must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court. If an argument is not raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it, [the appellate court] will not address it on appeal”
- holding persuasive FDIC’s argument concerning inadmissibility of evidence of post-closing damages in which FDIC conceded that defendants could challenge FDIC’s evidence regarding the salvage value of unliquidated collateral and thereby attack the damages figure recommended by the FDIC
- holding that party wishing to preserve argument for appeal “must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings” below, allowing it to be raised “to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 2, 1994
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied.
The FDIC asks for clarification regarding our holding in part III.B of our opinion. We held only that the district court committed no reversible error in excluding the defendant directors’ evidence regarding the post-closing conduct of the FDIC in protecting the failed bank’s assets. We noted that the district court admitted other evidence offered by the defendant directors to counter the FDIC’s proof of the element of proximate cause, such as evidence of changes in the tax laws, declining collateral values, and general economic deterioration. The FDIC did not challenge the district court’s evidentiary rulings on these issues, and we express no opinion on the propriety of those evidentiary rulings.