Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast…
Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-08088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ohio Security v. Selective, Judge Woods granted an application for a telephone status conference about Travelers’ request to exclude late-produced evidence.
Ohio Security Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, and Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast are affected by the scheduled telephone status conference and the unresolved dispute over whether Ohio may rely on the late-produced verified bill of particulars.
What happened
Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America concerns insurance coverage and contribution related to an underlying injury lawsuit. Ohio produced a verified bill of particulars after discovery had closed, and the parties disputed whether it could be used.
Travelers asked the court to prevent Ohio from relying on the document, arguing that Ohio disclosed it too late and that it did not properly respond to any demand in the underlying lawsuit. Ohio said the late production was an inadvertent mistake, caused no prejudice, and could be addressed through additional limited discovery if necessary.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the application for a conference but did not decide whether the document may be used. He scheduled a telephone status conference for September 17, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., and directed the parties to follow his individual practice rules.
The detailed version
- Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast… · No. 1:24-cv-08088
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Ohio Security Insurance Company seeks coinsurance contribution from Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America concerning coverage for an underlying Labor Law action. That underlying action involves alleged injuries suffered by Gilson Ramos after he fell from a ladder while working on a construction project. The opinion text states that Ohio is defending certain project-related entities as additional insureds under its policy.
Fact discovery in this case closed on May 22, 2025. On August 12, 2025, Ohio produced a verified bill of particulars served in the underlying action in connection with J&S Mechanical, Inc. Travelers argued that Ohio had possessed the document since October 2024 but did not produce it during the earlier discovery period.
Discovery dispute
Travelers requested an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) preventing Ohio from relying on the document in any motion, hearing, or trial. Travelers argued that the disclosure was untimely, was not substantially justified or harmless, and caused prejudice because Travelers would need to investigate the document and modify its summary-judgment briefing. Travelers also argued that the document was not responsive to a valid demand in the underlying action and should be treated as having no legal effect.
Ohio responded that the omission was an inadvertent mistake. Ohio said its counsel obtained the claims file after the document was served, later found the document while preparing its summary-judgment motion, and produced it immediately after locating it. Ohio argued that Travelers had equal access to the document through counsel defending J&S in the underlying action. Ohio also argued that the document’s usefulness and evidentiary weight were merits issues rather than grounds for excluding it in the discovery dispute. Ohio offered to allow additional limited discovery or another continuance if Travelers considered that necessary.
Court’s action
The court did not rule on Travelers’ request to preclude the document, the document’s evidentiary value, or the parties’ insurance-coverage arguments. Instead, the court granted the application for a status conference concerning the dispute. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered a telephone status conference on September 17, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., and directed the parties to comply with Rule 2 of the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, including the specified conference requirements.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.