Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 17, 2025

The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:25-cv-03924
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In The Morganti Group v. Zurich American Ins. Co., Judge Liman approved a 90-day discovery extension while settlement discussions continued.

Who this affects

The order affects The Morganti Group, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co. by extending the case’s discovery deadlines and rescheduling the post-discovery status conference. It also gives the parties additional time while Morganti continues settlement discussions concerning J&A Concrete Corp.’s related claim.

What happened

The Morganti Group, Inc. sued Zurich American Insurance Co. over an insurance claim arising from property damage during a construction project. Morganti sought $2.6 million under a builder’s risk policy after Zurich denied its claim.

Morganti and Zurich had agreed in principle on a settlement framework, but a non-party subcontractor, J&A Concrete Corp., had a related claim under the policy. Morganti requested either a 90-day stay or a 90-day extension so it could continue settlement discussions with J&A.

The court approved the proposed 90-day extension of the discovery deadlines and rescheduled the post-discovery conference for April 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Judge Lewis Liman issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co. · No. 1:25-cv-03924
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Sept. 17, 2025

Background

The case is an insurance-coverage dispute arising from a construction project known as PS 138X (Bronx). The Morganti Group, Inc. was the prime contractor, and J&A Concrete Corp. was a subcontractor. Zurich American Insurance Co. provided an owner-controlled insurance program that included a first-party builder’s risk property insurance policy. Morganti was an additional insured under the policy, and the parties understood that J&A claimed to be an additional insured as well.

On July 7, 2023, J&A’s work pouring a concrete slab at the project’s roof level resulted in property damage. Morganti submitted a claim to Zurich that included a claim passed through from J&A. Zurich denied the claim based on what it contended was a policy exclusion. Morganti then filed this action seeking $2.6 million under the policy.

Request for More Time

Morganti told the court that it and Zurich had agreed in principle to a settlement framework that could resolve the action. But J&A’s related claim had not been resolved, and J&A had indicated that it might file a separate lawsuit against Zurich concerning the same policy. Morganti and J&A were continuing settlement discussions and considering mediation.

Morganti requested a 90-day stay of the action or, alternatively, a 90-day extension of the case-management and scheduling deadlines. Zurich did not object. The proposed changes extended written discovery, fact discovery, depositions, requests to admit, expert discovery, all discovery, and summary-judgment-motion deadlines by approximately 90 days.

Court’s Ruling

The court approved the 90-day extension of the discovery deadlines as proposed. It rescheduled the post-discovery status conference, previously set for January 6, 2026, to April 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order. The opinion text does not state that the court granted the requested stay.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.