Shri Dayavant LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-02405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shri Dayavant v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Vargas granted Mt. Hawley more time to file an amended answer adding an insurance defense.
Mt Hawley Insurance Co. received additional time to file an amended answer; Shri Dayavant, LLC opposed the extension but the court granted it.
What happened
Shri Dayavant, LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Co. involved Mt Hawley’s request to extend the deadline for amending its answer. Mt Hawley sought to add a defense that the insurance policy does not cover losses contributed to by preexisting damage.
Shri Dayavant opposed the request, arguing that Mt Hawley had known about the roof’s preexisting damage before the amendment deadline. The court found that Mt Hawley acted promptly after the plaintiff’s expert testified that preexisting damage made the roof and windows more vulnerable to Hurricane Jan’s winds. The court also noted that the plaintiff identified no prejudice and that Mt Hawley did not seek to reopen discovery or delay the case.
Judge Vargas granted the motion to adjust the pleading-amendment deadline. Mt Hawley may file its amended answer by June 9, 2025. The order addressed the case schedule, not whether the insurance defense or coverage claim ultimately succeeds.
The detailed version
- Shri Dayavant LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-02405
- Vargas
- June 2, 2025
Background
Mt Hawley Insurance Co. moved to extend the deadline for amending pleadings so it could add an affirmative defense based on an insurance-policy provision concerning losses contributed to by preexisting damage. The proposed defense relates to preexisting damage to the roof and windows involved in the loss.
The original case-management plan set June 12, 2024, as the amendment deadline. A revised plan extended the deadline to August 29, 2024, and a later plan left that deadline unchanged. Discovery closed on May 22, 2025, and the court had set a schedule for summary-judgment briefing.
Parties’ Positions
Shri Dayavant, LLC opposed the motion. It argued that information about the roof’s preexisting damage had been known to Mt Hawley long before the amendment deadline. Mt Hawley argued that it acted after the plaintiff’s expert testified at a deposition that the preexisting damage contributed to the damage caused by high winds during Hurricane Jan.
Court’s Analysis
Because Mt Hawley filed its motion after the court-ordered deadline, the court applied Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard rather than the more flexible Rule 15(a) standard. Good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence.
The court found that Mt Hawley acted diligently by filing the motion soon after the expert’s testimony. Although the plaintiff argued that Mt Hawley already knew the preexisting damage existed, the court found no evidence that Mt Hawley knew the damage was a contributing factor. The court also noted that Mt Hawley represented that its own expert had not identified preexisting damage as a contributing factor. The plaintiff did not argue that the amendment would be futile or identify prejudice from allowing it, and Mt Hawley did not seek to reopen discovery or otherwise delay the litigation.
Ruling
The court GRANTED the motion to adjust the amendment deadline in the Second Revised Case Management Plan. Mt Hawley shall have until June 9, 2025, to file its Amended Answer. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 47. The order did not decide whether the proposed insurance defense is valid or whether the policy provides coverage.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns amendment of pleadings and adjustment of a case-management deadline, rather than the merits of the insurance-coverage dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.