Malcarne Contracting Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-04244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Malcarne Contracting v. Progressive Casualty, Judge Garnett denied Progressive’s default-judgment request without prejudice, allowing renewal after remaining claims are resolved.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s request for default judgment was denied without prejudice. Eden General Construction, Inc. and Sidewalk Repair NYC, Inc. remain subject to certificates of default that prevent them from arguing the merits of the claims against them from February 19, 2025 forward.
What happened
Malcarne Contracting Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company involves Progressive’s request for a court judgment against Eden General Construction, Inc. and Sidewalk Repair NYC, Inc. because they did not defend the claims against them.
Progressive sought a ruling that Eden and Sidewalk had no coverage under a commercial auto liability policy issued by Progressive to Sidewalk, and that they could not bring policy claims against Progressive. The court noted that the case still includes active parties and that deciding these issues now could produce inconsistent judgments.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Progressive’s request for a default judgment without prejudice to renewing it after the remaining claims are resolved. The clerk’s existing default certificates remain in place, preventing Eden and Sidewalk from arguing the merits of the claims against them from February 19, 2025 forward.
The detailed version
- Malcarne Contracting Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-04244
- Garnett
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, acting as a third-party plaintiff, moved for default judgment against third-party defendants Eden General Construction, Inc. and Sidewalk Repair NYC, Inc. Progressive sought an order declaring that neither Eden nor Sidewalk had coverage under the specified commercial auto liability policy that Progressive issued to Sidewalk. Progressive also sought to prevent Eden and Sidewalk from asserting claims under that policy against Progressive.
The court stated that the requested declaration implicated claims asserted by the active litigants in the case. Because other claims remained pending, entering a default judgment at that stage created a risk of inconsistent judgments. The clerk had already issued certificates of default against Eden and Sidewalk.
Ruling
The court denied Progressive’s application for default judgment without prejudice to renewal after the remaining claims involving the active litigants are resolved. The court explained that, because the case involved multiple defendants, entering a default rather than a default judgment was more appropriate at that point.
The existing certificates of default will prevent Eden and Sidewalk, from February 19, 2025 forward, from arguing the merits of the claims made against them. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as Docket No. 63. The order did not decide whether Eden or Sidewalk had insurance coverage.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.