USM Asset Trust Series-7 v. Colony Insurance Company
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-01077
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In USM Asset Trust Series-7 v. Colony Insurance Company, Judge Moses denied pre-summary-judgment discovery because the contracts showed no relevant ambiguity.
USM Asset Trust Series-7’s request for pre-summary-judgment discovery was denied. USM could still oppose Colony Insurance Company’s summary-judgment motion using affidavits or other outside evidence obtained without discovery.
What happened
In USM Asset Trust Series-7 v. Colony Insurance Company, USM asked to conduct broad discovery about the parties’ intent before responding to Colony’s summary-judgment motion. USM argued that Colony’s position created possible uncertainty in the insurance policies and a related trade contract.
The court concluded that USM had not identified any relevant uncertainty in the wording of the contracts themselves. It therefore denied USM’s request for discovery about the parties’ intent.
Judge Moses said USM could still make the same argument in its opposition to the summary-judgment motion and could submit affidavits or other outside evidence obtained without discovery. The court set January 15, 2021, for USM’s opposition and January 29, 2021, for Colony’s reply, if any.
The detailed version
- USM Asset Trust Series-7 v. Colony Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-01077
- Barbara Moses
- Dec. 15, 2020
Background
USM Asset Trust Series-7 sought wide-ranging discovery concerning the contracting parties’ intent before responding to Colony Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. USM argued that Colony’s position—that no written contract required Empire HD, Inc. to name USM as an additional insured under its insurance policies—created potential ambiguities in those policies and in the underlying Trade Contract between Empire and non-party Dixon Projects LLC.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that USM had failed to identify any relevant ambiguity on the face of any contract at issue. Under the authorities cited by the court, ambiguity is determined from the document itself, and outside evidence of the parties’ intent may be considered only if the agreement is ambiguous. The court rejected USM’s contention that Colony’s position in its summary-judgment papers could create ambiguity in the contracts.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court denied USM’s request to conduct wide-ranging discovery about the parties’ intent before responding to Colony’s summary-judgment motion. The order did not prevent USM from renewing its argument in its opposition papers or from supporting that argument with affidavits or other outside evidence it could obtain without discovery. USM’s opposition was due January 15, 2021, and Colony’s reply, if any, was due January 29, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.