Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2025

The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company and…

Full caption

The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company and Hudson Excess Insurance Company

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-01248
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Travelers v. Fortegra: Judge Subramanian ordered FT Enterprises to attend its October 23, 2025 deposition and denied its requested extension.

Who this affects

Non-party FT Enterprises Group must appear for an in-person deposition on October 23, 2025. Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company obtained the requested deposition order, while FT’s requested extension was denied.

What happened

In The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company and Hudson Excess Insurance Company, Fortegra asked the court to require non-party FT Enterprises Group to attend an in-person deposition on October 23, 2025.

The dispute arose during discovery in an insurance-coverage case connected to an injury lawsuit. Fortegra said the deposition had been agreed to but that FT’s lawyer later refused to produce the witness before another deposition occurred. Fortegra asked the court to enforce the subpoena and keep the October 23 date.

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request requiring FT Enterprises Group to appear on October 23, 2025, and denied FT’s requested extension. The order did not decide the underlying insurance-coverage issues.

The detailed version

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

Case
The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company and… · No. 1:25-cv-01248
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Oct. 10, 2025

Background

The case is an insurance-coverage action arising from an injury to Luis Bermeo while he was working on a construction project. The opinion states that Bermeo alleged a steel object fell from above and struck his head, and that he filed a personal-injury lawsuit. FT Enterprises Group was identified as a third-party defendant in that lawsuit.

During discovery, Fortegra said Hudson Excess Insurance Company produced two sworn statements from FT employees that allegedly implicated American Architectural Windows as the cause of the accident. Fortegra therefore served FT with a federal subpoena for a deposition. According to Fortegra’s letter-motion, the lawyers agreed to an October 23, 2025 deposition date, but FT’s lawyer later said FT would not be produced until after Bermeo’s deposition and did not provide an alternative date.

Ruling

The court’s order states “GRANTED.” It ordered FT Enterprises Group to appear for an in-person deposition on October 23, 2025, as previously scheduled. It also states that FT’s requested extension was “DENIED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter-motions identified in the order. The order addressed the discovery dispute and did not resolve whether any insurer owed coverage, defense, or indemnity.

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.