U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Lead Name of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds…
U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Lead Name of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Subscribing to Policy No. 10268L170237 and Policy No. 10268L170238
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-05466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In U.S. Specialty Insurance v. Lead Name of Certain Underwriters, Judge Engelmayer denied an emergency order because money damages could address the alleged harm.
United States Specialty Insurance Company’s request for emergency relief was denied; the defendants were not temporarily barred from exhausting the designated policy limits. The court also required the plaintiff to justify continued sealing of the case.
What happened
In U.S. Specialty Insurance v. Lead Name of Certain Underwriters, United States Specialty Insurance Company asked the court, without advance notice to the defendants, to temporarily prevent them from using the limits of certain insurance policies. The request concerned possible settlements with third parties that might affect the parties’ coverage obligations.
The court explained that an emergency order without notice requires specific evidence of immediate, irreparable harm. It found that the complaint and the plaintiff’s submissions did not adequately show such harm. The court said money damages could make the plaintiff whole if the settlements were later found unlawful.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the request for the temporary restraining order. He also gave the plaintiff an opportunity to explain why the insurance case should remain sealed, stating that the case could otherwise be unsealed.
The detailed version
- U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Lead Name of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds… · No. 1:25-cv-05466
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 15, 2025
Background
United States Specialty Insurance Company, as subrogee of Wonder Works Construction Corp., applied without advance notice for a temporary restraining order against Lead Name of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 10268L170237 and Policy No. 10268L170238, and other defendants. The requested order would have prevented the defendants from exhausting the limits of designated insurance policies. The plaintiff proposed barring the defendants from unilaterally settling with third parties at the expense of their insureds, because those settlements might affect the parties’ coverage obligations.
The court separately noted that the case had been filed under seal. It did not perceive a sound reason for sealing the insurance action and gave the plaintiff until July 8, 2025, to explain why continued sealing was justified.
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a temporary restraining order may issue without notice only if specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and the moving attorney certifies the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required. Irreparable harm is harm that is actual and imminent, rather than remote or speculative, and cannot be remedied by money damages. The court described irreparable harm as the most important prerequisite for injunctive relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately plead irreparable harm and that the plaintiff had not adequately established it. The plaintiff did not explain why the feared injury in the insurance dispute could not be remedied by a later award of money damages. The court reasoned that money damages could make the plaintiff whole if later proceedings established that the settlements were unlawful.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order. The court also stated that it would order the case unsealed on the following day if the plaintiff did not submit an explanation by July 8, 2025, or if the explanation did not persuade the court that continued sealing was justified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.