Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U.S. 1, 5 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Cite as: 530 U. S. 1 (2000)

Opinion of the Court

ment of the case," are treated as administrative expenses, which are, as a rule, entitled to priority over prepetition un-secured claims, see §§ 507(a)(1), 726(a)(1), 1129(a)(9)(A). Respondent does not dispute that the cost of the workers' compensation insurance Hen House purchased from petitioner is an administrative expense within the meaning of this provision. Administrative expenses, however, do not have priority over secured claims, see §§ 506, 725-726, 1129(b)(2)(A); United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 378-379 (1988), and because respondent held a security interest in essentially all of the estate's assets, there were no unencumbered funds available to pay even administrative claimants.

Petitioner therefore looked to § 506(c), which constitutes an important exception to the rule that secured claims are superior to administrative claims. That section provides as follows:

"The trustee may recover from property securing an allowed secured claim the reasonable, necessary costs and expenses of preserving, or disposing of, such property to the extent of any benefit to the holder of such claim." § 506(c).

Petitioner argued that this provision entitled it to recover from the property subject to respondent's security interest the unpaid premiums owed by Hen House, since its furnishing of workers' compensation insurance benefited respondent by allowing continued operation of Hen House's business, thereby preserving the value of respondent's collateral; or alternatively, that such benefit could be presumed from respondent's consent to the postpetition financing order. Although it was contested below whether, under either theory, the workers' compensation insurance constituted a "benefit to the holder" within the meaning of § 506(c), that issue is not before us here; we assume for purposes of this decision that it did, and consider only whether peti-

5

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007