Albert v. Edward William, SL

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
KEVIN S. ALBERT AND KIMBERLY 	) 	CV. NO. 23-00221 SOM-WRP
LEBLANC ALBERT, TRUSTEES OF 	)
THE ALBERT REVOCABLE TRUST 	) 	ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
UAD 6/3/1997 AND RESTATED 	) 	ION INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.’S
1/7/2020 	) 	MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
EDWARD WILLIAM, S.L., a 	)
foreign corporation; ION 	)
INSURANCE GROUP, S.A., a 	)
foreign corporation; ION 	)
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a 	)
U.S. corporation; ALLIED 	)
FINANCIAL NETWORK, a Hawaiʻi 	)
corporation; STEVE BONNER; 	)
JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 	)
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; 	)
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE 	)
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; 	)
and DOE ENTITIES 1-50, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ION INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. 	INTRODUCTION.
This case arises from the grounding, salvage attempt,
and sinking of Nakoa, a ninety-four-foot yacht, on the coast of
West Maui. 	ECF No. 13, PageID # 56, 62. 	Before the court is
Defendant ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s1 motion for summary
1 	The parties abbreviate the ION Defendants’ names in their
filings. See, e.g., ECF No. 40, PageID # 222. 	For clarity, the
court uses the parties’ full names in this order.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

2
judgment. 	ECF No. 19. 	The court concludes that questions of
fact preclude the grant of summary judgment. 	ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s motion is therefore denied.
II. 	RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
The parties dispute many facts in this case. 	Relevant
to the motion now before the court, the Trust alleges the
following in its first amended complaint:
In December 2022, Noelani Yacht Charters and Jim
Jones, neither a party to this case, purchased Nakoa from
Kimberly Leblanc Albert and Kevin S. Albert, the trustees of the
Albert Revocable Trust (collectively, “the Trust”), for
$1,450,000 to be paid over fifteen years. 	ECF No. 13, PageID
# 55-56.
Under the watch of Jones and others associated with
Noelani Yacht Charters, Nakoa ran aground in the Honolua-
Mokulēʻia Marine Life Conservation District2 in West Maui in late
February 2023. 	ECF No. 13, PageID # 60-62. 	Three weeks later in
early March, Nakoa sank during a salvage attempt after it was
towed off the shoreline. 	ECF No. 13, PageID # 62.
During Nakoa’s grounding, salvage attempt, and sinking
(“the grounding”), the vessel appears to have been insured by an
2 	The State of Hawaiʻi’s Department of Land and Natural
Resources (“DLNR”) establishes Marine Life Conservation
Districts. 	See HRS ch. 190.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

3
ION entity: 	either Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A., and/or
Defendant ION Insurance Company, Inc.3 	See ECF No. 13, PageID #
63; ECF No. 31, PageID # 137-38.
The identity of the original insurer is clear. 	Before
the grounding, the Trust had obtained an insurance policy from
ION Insurance Group, S.A., a foreign corporation, through
Defendant Steve Bonner, an insurance broker and the president of
Defendant Allied Financial Network (“AFN”). 	The policy listed
Defendant Edward William S.L. as the agent of both ION
Defendants. 	See ECF No. 13, PageID # 55, 63. 	In March 2023,
after Nakoa’s grounding, ION Insurance Group, S.A., may have
assigned or transferred responsibility for Nakoa’s policy to ION
Insurance Company, Inc., a U.S. corporation. 	ECF No. 13, PageID
# 55, 63. 	What is unclear is the relationship between ION
Insurance Group, S.A., and ION Insurance Company, Inc.
(collectively, the “ION Defendants”). 	ION Insurance Company,
Inc., may or may not be the alter ego of ION Insurance Group,
S.A. 	ECF No. 31, PageID # 139.
3 	As ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s attorney noted at the hearing
on October 23, 2023 (the “hearing”), the Trust has sued, among
others, only two ION entities (ION Insurance Company, Inc., and
ION Insurance Group, S.A.). 	There appears to be at least one
other ION entity (ION Surety Company S.A.) referenced in ION
Insurance Group, S.A.’s “International” Yacht Clauses, see ECF
No. 32-3, PageID # 159, and other documents linked on an ION
entity’s website, see ION Insurance Company,
https://www.ion.co.cr/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

4
After Nakoa’s grounding, the State of Hawai‘i’s
Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”) demanded that
the Trust pay for the salvage operations. 	ECF No. 13, PageID
# 64.
Thereafter, an Edward William representative, acting
on behalf of an ION entity, told DLNR’s Boating and Recreation
Division Administrator that “ION” was willing to make certain
payments related to the salvage liabilities.4 	ECF No. 13, PageID
# 64.
However, ION Insurance Group, S.A., ultimately
declined all coverage related to Nakoa’s grounding. 	ECF No. 13,
PageID # 64.
III. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
After the coverage declination, the Trust sued ION
Insurance Group, S.A.; ION Insurance Company, Inc.; Edward
William S.L.; AFN; Steve Bonner; and numerous Does asserting,
inter alia, negligence, breach of contract, and insurance bad
faith claims. 	ECF No. 13, PageID # 65-69. 	Related litigation
arising from Nakoa’s grounding is also before this court. 	See
Albert v. Noelani Yacht Charters, LLC, No. 23-00132 SOM-RT.
ION Insurance Company, Inc., filed a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion in the present case seeking
4 	At the hearing, the Trust’s attorney explained that the
salvage claim is around $470,000.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 4 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

5
dismissal of claims against it in the Trust’s first amended
complaint. 	ECF No. 19. 	Pursuant to Rule 12(d), the court
notified the parties that it would treat ION Insurance Company,
Inc.’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a Rule 56 motion for summary
judgment because the movant, in support of its motion to
dismiss, submitted a declaration constituting “a matter outside
the pleadings.” 	ECF No. 25. 	ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
subsequently filed a concise statement of material facts in
support of its motion in accordance with Local Rule 56.1, which
restated the positions set forth in its motion. 	ECF No. 27.
A. 	ION Insurance Company
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
In its motion for summary judgment, ION Insurance
Company, Inc., argues that the Trust erroneously named it as a
Defendant based on the false “belief that the insurance policy
at issue” was transferred from ION Insurance Group, S.A., to ION
Insurance Company, Inc. 	ECF No. 19-1, PageID # 100. 	According
to ION Insurance Company, Inc., it “never insured” Nakoa, and
the relevant policy was not transferred to it “at any time
relevant” to the Trust’s claims. 	ECF No. 19-1, PageID # 100.
ION Insurance Company, Inc., submitted a declaration from its
chief executive officer, Opal Whitney. 	ECF No. 19-2.
B. 	Trust’s Opposition.
In opposition to ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s motion,
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 5 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

6
the Trust contends that there are genuine disputes of material
fact as to which ION entity was responsible for the relevant
insurance policy, whether there was an assignment of the policy
between the ION entities, and whether ION Insurance Company,
Inc., “is merely the alter ego of ION Insurance Group, S.A. such
that it could be held vicariously liable.” 	ECF No. 31, PageID #
139. 	The Trust points to a March 2023 policy declaration
(policy no. EW1008658), ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155-56; ION
Insurance Group S.A.’s 2022 “International” Yacht Clauses, ECF
No. 32-3, PageID # 157; the Trust’s certificate of liability
insurance for Nakoa (policy no. EW1020234), ECF No. 32-4, PageID
# 180; and an email from a director at Edward William, sent on
behalf of ION, to DLNR, ECF No. 32-5, PageID # 181; ECF No. 40-
2, PageID # 231, ¶ 6.
C. 	AFN’s Position.
After the Trust submitted its Opposition, but before
ION Insurance Company, Inc., replied, AFN and its president,
Steve Bonner, submitted a filing, explaining that they “do not
take a position” as to whether ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
insured the Trust. 	ECF No. 33, PageID # 185. 	They contend,
however, that “there is a valid policy” for Nakoa “identifying
the [Trust] as the named insured from an ION corporate entity
under policy no. EW1008658.” 	ECF No. 33, PageID # 185-86. 	They
submit a declaration from Bonner, ECF No. 33-1, PageID # 187-88,
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 6 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

7
and a copy of the same March 2023 policy declaration submitted
by the Trust, ECF No. 33-2, PageID # 190-91.
D. 	ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s Reply.
ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s reply memorandum argues
that it is “uncertain what documents” the Trust expects it “to
provide given that [it] would not generate documents relating to
a policy in which it has no interest in and is not a party to.”
ECF No. 39, PageID # 207-08. 	It submits a second declaration
from its chief executive officer, Opal Whitney, ECF No. 40-1,
PageID # 228; a declaration from the Edward William director who
emailed DLNR, ECF No. 40-2, along with another copy of his email
to DLNR, ECF No. 40-3; ION Insurance Company, Inc.’s 2022 “USA”
Yacht Clauses, ECF No. 40-4; a November 2022 policy declaration
for Nakoa that is nearly identical to the March 2023 policy
declaration submitted by the Trust and AFN, ECF No. 40-5; ION
Insurance Company, Inc.’s certificate of incorporation in
American Sāmoa, ECF No. 40-6; and its 2021 Financial Statements,
ECF No. 40-7.
IV. 	JURISDICTION.
This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity between
the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
exclusive of interest, fees, and costs. 	See ECF No. 13, PageID #
55, ¶ 1 (not refering to citizenship but stating that the Trust
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 7 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

8
resides in New Mexico); ECF No. 13, PageID # 55, ¶ 3 (alleging
that ION Insurance Group, S.A., is a Costa Rican corporation
with a principal place of business in Malaga, Spain5); ECF No.
13, PageID # 55, ¶ 4 (alleging that ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
is a domestic corporation registered in American Sāmoa with its
principal place of business in Louisiana); ECF No. 13, PageID
# 55, ¶ 5 (alleging that AFN is both registered and has its
principal place of business in Hawai‘i); ECF No. 13, PageID # 55,
¶ 6 (not referring to citizenship but alleging that Bonner is a
Hawai‘i resident); ECF No. 13, PageID # 69-70 (seeking at least
$2,450,000 in damages).
V. 	SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
summary judgment shall be granted when “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). 	See Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134
(9th Cir. 2000). 	The movants must support their position
concerning whether a material fact is genuinely disputed by
either “citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
5 	At the hearing, the Trust’s attorney clarified that,
notwithstanding the allegation “upon information and belief” in
its complaint, ECF No. 13, PageID # 55, ¶ 3, ION Insurance
Group, S.A., has not registered to do business in Hawai`i,
despite doing business here.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 8 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

9
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including
those made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to identify
and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
Summary judgment must be granted against a party that
fails to demonstrate facts to establish what will be an
essential element at trial. 	See id. at 323. 	A moving party
without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial——usually, but
not always, the defendant——has both the initial burden of
production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for
summary judgment. 	Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos.,
210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
The burden initially falls on the moving party to
identify for the court those “portions of the materials on file
that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of
material fact.” 	T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors
Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp.,
477 U.S. at 323). 	“When the moving party has carried its burden
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 9 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

10
under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show
that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986) (footnote omitted).
The nonmoving party may not rely on the mere
allegations in the pleadings and instead must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. 	T.W.
Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. 	At least some “‘significant
probative evidence tending to support the complaint’” must be
produced. 	Id. (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,
391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968)); see also Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134 (“A
scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or
not significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of
material fact.”). 	“[I]f the factual context makes the non-
moving party’s claim implausible, that party must come forward
with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary
to show that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 	Cal.
Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,
818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587).
In adjudicating a summary judgment motion, the court
must view all evidence and inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. 	T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at
631. 	When “direct evidence” produced by the moving party
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 10 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

11
conflicts with “direct evidence” produced by the party opposing
summary judgment, “the judge must assume the truth of the
evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that
fact.” 	Id. 	Inferences may be drawn from underlying facts not
in dispute, as well as from disputed facts that the judge is
required to resolve in favor of the nonmoving party. 	Id.
VI. 	ANALYSIS.
After reviewing the parties’ filings and attached
declarations and exhibits, the court concludes that questions of
fact preclude the grant of summary judgment to ION Insurance
Company, Inc. 	First, the relationship between the ION Defendants
remains unclear. 	Relatedly, the court cannot discern which ION
Defendant bears responsibility to insure Nakoa in connection
with its grounding. 	The court addresses each in turn.
A. 	Relationship Between the ION Defendants.
The relationship between ION Insurance Group, S.A.,
and ION Insurance Company, Inc., is not clear from the present
record. 	The court cannot tell the degree of interrelationship
between the ION Defendants and whether ION Insurance Company,
Inc., is or is not an alter ego of ION Insurance Group, S.A.
In the second declaration submitted by ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s chief executive officer, Whitney states that ION
Insurance Company, Inc., was “bifurcated” from ION Insurance
Group, S.A., in 2018; that ION Insurance Group, S.A., does not
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 11 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

12
finance ION Insurance Company, Inc.; and that the two entities
“do not comingle funds or assets.” 	ECF No. 40-1, PageID # 228.
At bottom, her declaration suggests that the ION Defendants are
distinct entities.
But Whitney’s statements are contradicted by the 2021
report that ION Insurance Company, Inc., provided to support her
declaration. 	See ECF No. 40-7. 	In a section titled “Note C—
Related Parties,” the report explains that ION Insurance Company,
Inc., “derives a significant portion of their revenue from
retrocession business from ION Insurance Group, S.A. (Group).
Business expenses are also shared with the Group. 	[ION
Insurance Company, Inc.] is owed $298,556 from a company under
common control. 	The amount is payable on demand.” 	ECF No. 40-
7, PageID # 282 (emphasis omitted). 	ION Insurance Company,
Inc.’s sharing of business expenses with ION Insurance Group,
S.A., as well as its accrual of a “significant portion” of its
revenue from “retrocession business” from ION Insurance Group,
S.A., suggests that the ION Defendants are more interrelated
than Whitney’s declaration concludes. 	The report’s vague
reference to a “company under common control” also raises
questions about whether the ION Defendants comingle any assets.
An interrelationship between the ION Defendants is
also suggested by each entity’s 2022 Yacht Clauses. 	Both Yacht
Clauses are similar in language and form. Compare ECF No. 32-3,
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 12 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

13
with ECF No. 40-4. 	For example, the front pages of both
entities’ Yacht Clauses feature the ION logo and list Edward
William as agent. 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 157; ECF No. 40-4,
PageID # 234. 	Both entities’ Yacht Clauses are dated September
11, 2022. 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 157; ECF No. 40-4, PageID #
234.
Moreover, ION Insurance Group, S.A.’s Yacht Clauses
explain that “[t]oday[ ]the Group includes ION Surety Company
S.A. and ION Insurance Company, Inc. (US). 	Group Balance Sheet
Assets are US$180,000,000.” 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 159. 	ION
Insurance Company, Inc.’s Yacht Clauses similarly speak of “the
Group” in historical and present terms:
ION 	Insurance 	Company 	(IIC) 	was 	formed 	in 	2016 	as 	a
natural 	expansion 	of 	ION 	Insurance 	Group’s 	global
presence with an opening audit confirming Balance Sheet
Capital 	in 	excess of 	$180,000,000 	to 	better 	serve 	and
support US based clients and employers[.] . . .
The 	Group 	was 	originally 	formed 	to 	fill 	a 	niche 	in 	the
insurance 	market 	for 	clients 	who 	had 	difficulty 	in
obtaining 	coverage 	from 	mainstream 	insurers, 	either
because of the nature of their business or their physical
location. The Group has now evolved into a special risk
underwriter[.]
ECF No. 40-4, PageID # 236. 	Notably, both entities’ Yacht
Clauses refer to the $180,000,000 figure as belonging to the ION
entities as a “Group.” 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 159; ECF No. 40-4,
PageID # 236.
Also, ION Insurance Group S.A.’s Yacht Clause provides
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 13 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

14
that “[t]he Insurance policy is underwritten by ION Insurance
Company SA[,]” 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 159, but ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s Yacht Clauses provide no similar assurance as to
the underwriting of policies issued pursuant to its Yacht
Clauses, ECF No. 40-4.
Admittedly, there are some differences between the ION
Defendants’ Yacht Clauses, but these differences are not
conclusive. 	For example, each of the Yacht Clauses defines the
words “[w]e,” “us,” and “our” to refer to each respective ION
entity. 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 161; ECF No. 40-4, PageID # 238.
Also, each document makes clear that different law governs the
policies issued under it. 	ECF No. 32-3, PageID # 163 (Costa
Rican law governs policies issued under ION Insurance Group,
S.A.’s “International” Yacht Clauses); ECF No. 40-4, PageID
# 243 (U.S. law governs policies issued under ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s “USA” Yacht Clauses).
An interrelationship between the ION Defendants is
further supported by an email from an Edward William director,
sent on behalf of ION to DLNR. 	In the email, the director wrote:
I 	wish 	to 	follow 	up 	as 	promised 	with 	the 	confirmation
that 	all 	Steve’s 	clients 	are 	being 	switched 	from
coverage 	with 	the 	ION 	Insurance 	Group 	SA 	to 	their 	US
subsidiary ION Insurance Company LLC. 	They are licenced
and 	registered 	in 	American 	S[ā]moa 	. 	. 	. 	with 	the
policies 	subject 	to 	US 	law 	and 	practice. 	The 	policy
also 	provides 	greater 	levels 	of 	statutory 	coverage 	for
added peace of mind.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 14 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

15
As discussed, despite the lack of liability in this case
and 	the 	minimal 	exposure 	to 	salvage 	costs, 	ION 	are
willing to meet your salvage liabilities as a gesture of
their 	goodwill 	and 	in 	the 	spirit 	of 	working 	together
both now and in the future. 	I therefore look forward to
receipt 	of 	the 	salvage 	invoice 	once 	raised 	so 	we 	can
organise your reimbursement.
ECF No. 32-5, PageID # 181; ECF No. 40-3, PageID # 233; see ECF
No. 40-2, PageID # 	231, ¶ 7. 	Notably, the director does not
explain which ION Defendant agreed to cover DLNR’s salvage
liabilities. 	He uses plural language, although that might
simply reflect British usage rather than an intent to treat the
ION entities together. 	See ECF No. 32-5, PageID # 181; ECF No.
40-3, PageID # 233 (“ION are willing to meet your salvage
liabilities as a gesture of their goodwill and in the spirit of
working together both now and in the future.”).
Notably, the ION Defendants use the same agent (Edward
William), ECF No. 40-2, PageID # 231, and the same logo, see ECF
No. 32-3, PageID # 157. 	Moreover, at the hearing before this
court on October 23, 2023 (the “hearing”), ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s attorney admitted to also representing ION
Insurance Group, S.A., although he made it clear that his
statements to the court were being made on behalf of only ION
Insurance Company, Inc., service not yet having been
accomplished on ION Insurance Group, S.A.
The court’s review of the record establishes that
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 15 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

16
questions of fact remain as to the precise relationship between
the ION Defendants, such that ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
cannot be dismissed from this case at this time.
B. 	ION Defendants’ Responsibility
for Nakoa’s Insurance Policy.
Assuming arguendo that ION Insurance Group S.A., and
ION Insurance Company, Inc., are distinct entities, the court
concludes that it cannot determine on the present record which
ION entity, if any, has responsibility to the Trust in
connection with Nakoa’s grounding.
The Edward William director’s email, sent on behalf of
ION to DLNR, states that “all” of ION Insurance Group, S.A.’s
clients managed by Bonner “are being switched to [ION’s] US
subsidiary ION Insurance Company LLC.” 	ECF No. 32-5, PageID
# 181; see ECF No. 40-3, PageID # 233.
In his declaration, however, the director explains
that “the transfers of the policies” he referenced in the email
“occurred after the grounding” of Nakoa and that the policy
insuring Nakoa “at the time of its grounding was not among those
policies that were transferred on or about March 2023.” 	ECF No.
40-2, PageID # 231, ¶ 8. 	But the declaration is silent as to
whether the policy was ever transferred, ECF No. 40-2, PageID #
231, ¶ 8, or whether, absent a transfer, ION Insurance Company,
Inc., or another ION entity otherwise agreed to cover the
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 16 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

17
salvage costs, as his email appears to state, see ECF No. 40-3,
PageID # 233 (“despite the lack of liability in this case and
the minimal exposure to salvage costs, ION are willing to meet
your salvage liabilities as a gesture of their goodwill and in
the spirit of working together in the future”).
In her first declaration, Whitney, ION Insurance
Company, Inc.’s chief executive officer, also denies that ION
Insurance Company, Inc., was “a party to” or had “any interest
in” Nakoa’s policy at the time of the grounding in February
2023. 	ECF No. 19-2, PageID # 107. 	She states that ION Insurance
Company, Inc., did not “at any time relevant to the matters
alleged in the First Amended Complaint” insure Nakoa. ECF No. 19-
2, PageID # 107. 	She states that ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
“would not and did not accept a transfer of the policy which
insured [Nakoa] because a casualty had already occurred.” 	ECF
No. 19-2, PageID # 107.
However, the dueling policy declarations submitted by
the Trust, AFN, and ION Insurance Company, Inc., obfuscate the
director’s and Whitney’s declarations. 	See ECF No. 32-2, ECF
No. 33-2, ECF No. 40-5.
The policy declaration submitted by the Trust and AFN
is on ION Insurance Group, S.A.’s letterhead with the ION logo.
ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155; ECF No. 33-2, PageID # 190. 	It lists
“Albert Revocable Trust Dated June 3, 1997” as the insured and
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 17 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

18
“Noelani Yacht Charters” as an additional interest. 	ECF No. 32-
2, PageID # 155. 	Nakoa is the insured vessel under policy number
EW1008658. 	ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155. 	Edward William is listed
as the agent. 	ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155-56. 	The period of
coverage runs from October 25, 2022, to October 24, 2023. 	ECF
No. 32-2, PageID # 155. 	The Policy states that the conditions of
coverage are “Comprehensive - As per the ION Insurance Group
Yacht Clauses, 09/11/2022.” 	ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155. 	It was
signed in March 2023 after Nakoa’s grounding. 	See ECF No. 32-2,
PageID # 155.
Complicating matters, ION Insurance Company, Inc.,
submitted a November 2022 policy declaration for Nakoa that is
nearly identical to the Trust’s and AFN’s policy declaration,
but Noelani Yacht Charters is listed as the insured, and the
document was signed in November 2022. 	ECF No. 40-5, PageID #
270-71. 	Based on this policy declaration, ION Insurance
Company, Inc., argues that “[a]t the time the casualty
occurred,” Noelani Yacht Charters was the insured—not the Trust.
ECF No. 40, PageID # 223.
These dueling policy declarations raise more questions
than answers. 	No party has explained the origins of either the
November 2022 policy declaration submitted by ION Insurance
Company, Inc., ECF No. 40-5, or the March 2023 policy
declaration submitted by the Trust and AFN, ECF No. 32-2; ECF
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 18 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

19
No. 33-2. 	AFN and Steven Bonner, the policy broker who is also
the president of AFN, contend that the March 2023 policy
declaration is valid. 	ECF No. 33, PageID # 185-86; ECF No. 33-
1, PageID # 188.
Relatedly, ION Insurance Company, Inc., has not
explained how it obtained the November 2022 policy declaration.
Such an explanation is relevant given that it stated in its
briefing that it “would not generate documents relating to a
policy in which it has no interest in and is not a party to[,]”
ECF No. 39, PageID # 207-08, and its counsel reiterated this
statement at the hearing.
Finally, ION Insurance Company, Inc., has not
indicated whether it is responsible to Noelani Yacht Charters
for the policy listed in the November 2022 policy declaration it
submitted, or whether it contends that another ION entity is
responsible. 	If ION Insurance Company, Inc., is responsible for
this policy declaration, it is hard to understand its disavowal
of any responsibility for the policy listed in the March 2023
policy declaration submitted by the Trust and AFN. 	The policy
numbers on both policy declarations are the same and provide the
same coverage for the same period. 	Compare ECF No. 32-2, with
ECF No. 33-2, and ECF No. 40-5.
Similarly hard to square with ION Insurance Company,
Inc.’s denial of any connection to ION Insurance Group, S.A., is
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 19 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

20
the identical content of the November 2022 policy declaration
and the March 2023 policy declaration, except for the insureds
and signing dates. 	Both feature ION Insurance Group, S.A.’s
letterhead and state that the conditions are “Comprehensive – As
per the ION Insurance Group, S.A. Yacht Clauses, 09/11/2022.”
See ECF No. 40-5, PageID # 270.
In sum, although the Edward William director’s and
Whitney’s declarations deny that the relevant policy was
transferred after Nakoa’s grounding, the dueling policy
declarations submitted by ION Insurance Company, Inc, the Trust,
and AFN complicate the situation and call into question what the
operative policy was at the relevant time.6 	The Edward William
director’s email to DLNR also raises a question of which ION
entity agreed to cover the salvage costs, allegedly without
having any responsibility to do so.
On the present record, the court concludes that
questions of fact remain as to which ION Defendant was
responsible for insuring Nakoa at the time of its grounding.
6 	The certificate of liability insurance submitted by the Trust
also begs this question because the policy number on that
document is different from the policy number listed in all the
dueling policy declarations. 	Compare ECF No. 32-4, PageID # 180
(policy no. EW1020234), with ECF No. 32-2, PageID # 155 (policy
no. EW1008658).
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 20 of 21
PageID.<pageID>

21
VII. 	CONCLUSION.
The court concludes that there are questions of fact
as to (1) the relationship between ION Insurance Group, S.A.,
and ION Insurance Company, Inc., and (2) which ION Defendant was
responsible for Nakoa’s policy at the time of the grounding.
The court therefore DENIES ION Insurance Company,
Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate ION
Insurance Company Inc.’s motion, ECF No. 19.
It is so ordered.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 26, 2023.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Albert v. William, et al., Civ. No. 23-00221 SOM/WRP; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ION
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 43 Filed 10/26/23 Page 21 of 21
PageID.<pageID>