stay. (Pl.-Trustee’s Mot. for Summ. J., at p. 1). Plaintiff-Trustee argues that after Juice Stop Franchising filed bankruptcy on November 17, 1998, the D & 0 Liability Policy was property of the bankruptcy estate; therefore, the cancellation of the policy on December 13, 1998, was void because it violated the automatic stay. (Pl.Trustee’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., at pp. 13-15). Zurich responds that the D & 0 Liability Policy issued to Juice Stop Franchising was not “property” of the debtor’s estate and therefore is outside the scope of the automatic stay. (Zurich’s Br. in Supp. of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., at pp. 8-13). The Court, however, does not need to reach either of these arguments under Tenth Circuit law. A. The Bankruptcy Code’s Automatic Stay. U 519 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In the Tenth Circuit, a “contract that
holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments holding directors and officers liability policy was property of the estate because the estate was worth more with indemnification coverage than without the coverage holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate holding directors and officers liability policy was not property of the estate because it did not increase or decrease the worth of the bankruptcy estate