Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC v. Mt Hawley Ins Co

Background

Esplanade 2018 Partners, LLC sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company over an insurance policy covering property in Metairie, Louisiana. The policy covered the period from April 11, 2021, to April 11, 2022. Hurricane Ida damaged the property on or about August 29, 2021. Mt. Hawley investigated and determined that covered damage did not exceed the policy’s deductible.

Esplanade asserted a breach-of-contract claim and claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892, 22:1973, 22:1896, and 22:1964. It sought unpaid insurance proceeds, consequential damages, and damages outside the policy. The policy stated that matters arising under it would be governed by New York law and that litigation against Mt. Hawley had to be initiated in New York.

Esplanade initially filed in Louisiana state court. Mt. Hawley removed the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction and then obtained a transfer to the Southern District of New York under the policy’s forum-selection clause. Esplanade later sought to transfer the case back to Louisiana, arguing that recent Louisiana decisions made the forum-selection clause unenforceable.

Motion to Transfer

The court denied Esplanade’s motion to transfer. It treated the motion as effectively asking the court to reconsider Judge Guidry’s earlier transfer decision. The court concluded that Esplanade had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that justified reconsideration.

The court found that the Louisiana decisions cited by Esplanade did not establish that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable. It also denied Esplanade’s alternative request for permission to file a supplemental opposition to Mt. Hawley’s motion for partial summary judgment because Esplanade had not shown good cause for a supplemental filing.

Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether New York or Louisiana law governed the dispute. Summary judgment is a decision entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that New York choice-of-law principles applied because the case had been transferred to New York under a valid forum-selection clause. Under those principles, the policy’s New York choice-of-law provision controlled. The court also concluded that the policy involved an obligation exceeding $250,000, allowing the parties to select New York law under New York General Obligations Law § 5-1401.

The court rejected Esplanade’s argument that Louisiana insurance law required application of Louisiana law. It explained that Louisiana’s choice-of-law principles did not apply and that, under New York law, Louisiana’s policy preferences could not override the contractual choice of New York law.

The court granted Mt. Hawley’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denied Esplanade’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Because New York law governed, the court dismissed Esplanade’s claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892, 22:1973, 22:1896, and 22:1964, as well as Esplanade’s claim for attorney’s fees under Louisiana law. The order did not resolve every matter in the case; the court reserved judgment on Esplanade’s motion for contempt and to exclude Mt. Hawley’s expert.

Expert Disclosures

Esplanade sought to supplement expert disclosures served after the court’s deadline and to have them treated as timely. The court construed the request as asking it to reconsider an earlier order that barred reliance on untimely disclosed expert testimony absent further order.

The court denied the request in most respects because Esplanade did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. However, because Mt. Hawley did not oppose supplementation concerning Kevin Kimball, Andrew Knox, Joe Murdter, and Tony Childress, the court granted Esplanade’s motion in part. It ordered Esplanade to provide specified information for those experts under the applicable disclosure rules. The court denied the motion in all other respects, including as to Rob Haidler.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Esplanade’s motion for leave to file a supplemental opposition, Esplanade’s motion for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority, and Mt. Hawley’s two motions for leave to file supplemental notices of authority. The court denied Esplanade’s motion to transfer. It granted in part and denied in part Esplanade’s motion to supplement its expert disclosures and deem them not untimely. The court reserved judgment on Esplanade’s motion for contempt and to exclude Mt. Hawley’s expert, Travis Fagala. The parties were directed to meet and confer and submit a joint letter proposing next steps for resolving the case.