Broadway 104, LLC v. AXA Financial, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-03813
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Broadway 104 v. AXA, Judge Castel adjourned the initial conference to September 4, 2020, without ruling on the requested stay.
Broadway 104, LLC and the defendant insurer were affected by the adjournment of the initial pretrial conference. The provided order does not show a ruling on the requested stay or the underlying insurance claims.
What happened
Broadway 104, LLC sued its insurer over denied coverage for business losses connected to COVID-19 government-ordered restaurant closures. The complaint asserted contract, good-faith-and-fair-dealing, and unjust-enrichment claims and sought class-action treatment.
Broadway 104 asked the court to pause the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered whether to transfer and consolidate related business-interruption insurance cases. The defendant opposed the requested pause and planned to seek dismissal of the complaint and removal of the class allegations.
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered only that the initial conference be adjourned to September 4, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. The provided order does not show that the court granted or denied the requested stay.
The detailed version
- Broadway 104, LLC v. AXA Financial, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03813
- P. Castel
- July 2, 2020
Background
Broadway 104, LLC filed a class-action complaint concerning insurance coverage for business losses arising from COVID-19-related government restrictions. The opinion text says that the plaintiff owns and operates a restaurant in Manhattan and has an “all-risk” commercial insurance policy covering business-income losses and expenses associated with civil-authority restrictions. The plaintiff alleged that government orders closed restaurants for in-person dining and otherwise restricted operations, causing significant lost income. After the plaintiff submitted an insurance claim, the insurer issued a denial letter on April 7, 2020.
The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The defendant had indicated that it intended to move to dismiss the complaint and strike the class allegations.
Requested Stay
The plaintiff asked the court to stay the case, including the initial pretrial conference and related deadlines, while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered motions to transfer and consolidate related COVID-19 business-interruption insurance actions. The plaintiff stated that 205 related actions had been identified in connection with that proceeding and argued that a temporary pause could prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, conserve resources, and avoid duplicative litigation. The defendant opposed the request.
Ruling
The order states: “Conference adjourned to September 4, 2020 at 11 am.” Thus, Judge P. Kevin Castel adjourned the initial pretrial conference. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested stay, and it does not otherwise decide the insurance-coverage claims, the proposed class allegations, or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Name discrepancy
The supplied case metadata identifies the defendant as AXA Financial, Inc., while the opinion text’s “Re” line identifies the defendant as XL Insurance America, Inc. This summary uses the supplied case name in the required metadata and short-form case references, but the discrepancy should be checked against the docket.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.