MB 1607 LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Company
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-07513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In MB 1607, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Judge Rochon allowed Mt. Hawley to amend its answer to add a fraud defense.
Mt. Hawley Insurance Company may file an amended answer adding the proposed concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud defense. MB 1607, LLC will face that additional asserted defense in the case.
What happened
MB 1607, LLC sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company over the insurer’s refusal to pay for property damage allegedly caused by a hurricane in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mt. Hawley asked to amend its answer to add a defense based on concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud.
The court found good cause because Mt. Hawley said it did not learn the relevant information until after the deadline to amend, and disclosures and depositions occurred later. The court also found that the proposed defense was stated specifically enough to satisfy the rule governing fraud allegations and did not appear futile.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Mt. Hawley’s motion for leave to amend. The court ordered Mt. Hawley to file its amended answer by August 29, 2025, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- MB 1607 LLC v. Mt Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-07513
- Rochon
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
MB 1607, LLC brought the action against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, alleging that Mt. Hawley breached a property insurance policy by refusing to pay for damage allegedly arising from a hurricane in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mt. Hawley moved for leave to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense based on concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud. Although Mt. Hawley stated that MB 1607 opposed the motion, MB 1607 did not file an opposition brief or otherwise state specific grounds for opposing it.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows amendments to pleadings when justice requires, but after a scheduling-order deadline has passed, the moving party must show “good cause” under Rule 16. Good cause principally depends on the party’s diligence in trying to meet the deadline.
The deadline to seek leave to amend was November 29, 2024. The court found that Mt. Hawley did not begin learning the relevant information until April 2025, and that related disclosures and depositions occurred in May and July 2025. The record did not show undue delay, bad faith, or a dilatory motive by Mt. Hawley.
The court also considered whether the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning legally incapable of succeeding even if added to the pleading. Because the proposed defense sounded in fraud, it had to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to identify the allegedly false statements or omissions, the speaker, where and when they were made, and why they were fraudulent. The court found that Mt. Hawley identified the allegedly fraudulent submissions and when they occurred, and that the allegations were specific enough to satisfy Rule 9(b).
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Mt. Hawley’s motion for leave to amend. The court ordered Mt. Hawley to file its amended answer by August 29, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 55. The order addressed permission to amend the pleading; it did not decide whether the proposed concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud defense ultimately succeeds.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.