Arch Specialty Insurance Company v. TDL Restoration, Inc.

Document provided

The provided text is a January 30, 2020 letter submitted by counsel for TDL Restoration, Inc. in opposition to Arch Specialty Insurance Company’s letter motion for summary judgment. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state the court’s ruling.

Background

The letter states that Arch issued an insurance policy to TDL. It says the initial estimated premium was $47,749 and that an audit produced an additional premium of $171,339, bringing the asserted total premium to $219,088. TDL’s counsel states that TDL disputes how the audit was calculated and cannot replicate Arch’s results from the audit provided.

The letter also refers to records that TDL believes show additional payments totaling $80,518.42. It states that the records are unclear, that some payments may have been credited only partly, and that a transaction record is not itself proof of payment. The letter says efforts to verify the payments were continuing.

Arguments against summary judgment

TDL argues that factual questions remain about whether the audit correctly calculated the premium, whether the insurance broker obtained the policy properly and in conformity with the law, and whether the broker acted as Arch’s agent or TDL’s agent. The letter cites agency principles concerning when an insurance broker may act for an insurer, including in collecting premiums.

TDL’s counsel states that Arch agreed to assist TDL in understanding the audit and that counsel was working with an accountant to evaluate the accuracy of Arch’s claims. The letter concludes that summary judgment should not be granted because these issues remain disputed.

Disposition

The provided text contains no ruling by Judge Kenneth M. Karas. It does not say whether Arch’s summary-judgment motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.