insurers. Plaintiffs contend that coverage is available under the Guaranty Act because the insurance policy at issue is not “ocean marine” insurance under the 1989 amendments to the Guaranty Act. Plaintiffs argue, alternatively, that even if the policy is “ocean marine” insurance, the amendments are substantive and cannot be applied retroactively. Plaintiffs additionally contend that the cut-through endorsement by EAIC is an “insurance policy” under the Guaranty Act because the 1989 amendment excluding cut-through endorsements from the coverage of the Guaranty Act is also substantive and cannot be applied retroactively. Defendant LIGA disputes both contentions and claims that coverage is unavailable under the Guaranty Act for the insurance policy at issue. III. CONCLUSI W.D.La.1987) (<HOLDING>). In an attempt to resolve the conflict, the
holding that a standard wcel policy with a maritime endorsement is an ocean marine policy holding that a standard employers liability policy is not an ocean marine policy holding that a professional liability policy provided primary coverage over a general liability policy for acts committed by a pastor during counseling sessions holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate holding that the standard fire policy and a broader homeowners policy were so intertwined that the prescriptive period in the standard fire policy applied to nonfire perils