Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. v. JRA Marble and Construction LLC

Background

Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. filed this case on May 1, 2025. It moved for default judgment against JRA Marble and Construction LLC, JRA Marble & Granite Corporation, and JRA Marble and Construction Corp., which the opinion collectively calls the JRA Defendants. The Clerk of Court entered defaults against those defendants because they did not answer or otherwise respond to the original complaint.

On October 22, 2025, Hiscox filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint corrected deficient jurisdictional allegations but did not assert new claims. The court stated that Hiscox did not need to serve the amended complaint on the JRA Defendants because they had not appeared and the amended complaint added no new claims. The amended complaint therefore became the operative complaint when filed.

Court’s Analysis

The earlier Clerk’s entries of default were based on the original complaint. Because the amended complaint replaced that complaint, those entries no longer supported Hiscox’s motion for default judgment. The court therefore treated the motion as moot.

The court also addressed the relief Hiscox had requested. Hiscox sought a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify any defendant in the underlying action, as well as reimbursement of defense costs incurred in that action. The court stated that this relief appeared to prejudice, or possibly foreclose, relief sought by 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC and JDS Construction Group LLC, which were actively litigating defendants and counterclaimants.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that Hiscox’s motion for default judgment against the JRA Defendants was denied as moot. The court stated that Hiscox may renew the motion after obtaining an entry of default against each JRA Defendant based on the amended complaint. If Hiscox renews the motion, it must file a separate letter at the same time showing why granting the requested default judgment would not prejudice the actively litigating defendants. The Clerk was requested to terminate docket entries 48 and 57. The opinion did not decide whether Hiscox owes a defense or indemnity, or whether Hiscox is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs.