Indiana’s top court has shut down Cantor Fitzgerald’s $25 million bond claim, ruling state courts can’t hear disputes against out-of-state insurers.
On November 6, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the dismissal of Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and Tower Bridge International Services, L.P.’s lawsuit against three non-resident insurers over a denied fidelity bond claim. The case centered on whether Indiana courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, all of which were licensed to do business in Indiana but not incorporated or headquartered there.
Cantor Fitzgerald and Tower Bridge, both large financial entities, suffered losses exceeding $30 million due to fraud by a former employee of Tower Bridge and a former employee of a partner group. To protect against such risks, Cantor Fitzgerald held a fidelity bond for the period of April 27, 2020, to April 27, 2021, with a single-loss limit of $25 million. The bond was underwritten by four insurers: Federal Insurance Company ($10 million), and the three nonresident insurers ($5 million each).
The bond covered “loss resulting directly from dishonest or fraudulent acts committed by an Employee acting alone or in collusion with others.” Each insurer underwrote a specific portion, and the policy stated that each company was only liable for its share: “Each of said Companies shall be liable only for such proportion of any Single Loss under the attached bond as the amount underwritten by such Company... but in no event shall any of said Companies be liable for an amount greater than that underwritten by it.” The bond also provided that cancellation by one insurer would not affect the liability of the others.
After Cantor Fitzgerald notified the insurers of the loss in December 2020, the insurers declined to pay the full claim in May 2024. Cantor Fitzgerald and Tower Bridge filed suit in Indiana, alleging breach of contract and other claims.
The non-resident insurers moved to dismiss, arguing that their only connection to Indiana was being licensed there, and that the bond was not made in Indiana or with Indiana residents. Cantor Fitzgerald argued that being licensed in Indiana and appointing an agent for service of process under the state’s Admittance Statute amounted to consent to jurisdiction.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed. The courts held that the Admittance Statute does not grant Indiana courts jurisdiction over foreign insurers for contracts not made in Indiana or with Indiana residents. The appellate court also found that each insurer had a separate contract with Cantor Fitzgerald, not a joint agreement involving the Indiana-based Federal Insurance Company.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the non-resident insurers did not have sufficient contacts with Indiana for the state’s courts to exercise personal jurisdiction. The fraud and the insurance contracts had no substantial connection to Indiana, and the insurers’ only link to the state was their license to do business there.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case against the non-resident insurers for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied Cantor Fitzgerald’s request for more time to conduct jurisdictional discovery, noting that Cantor had not pursued such discovery during the proceedings.
The decision clarifies that simply being licensed in a state does not subject insurers to litigation there unless the contract at issue was made in the state or with its residents. For insurance professionals managing large, multi-state commercial policies, the ruling underscores the importance of understanding where contracts are formed and where disputes may be resolved.
