Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 13, 2021

Michael Block, Attorney at Law v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-09302
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Michael Block v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Judge Carter granted the parties’ joint request to stay discovery pending a motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

The discovery stay affects Michael Block, Attorney at Law, P.C., and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. in the insurance-coverage case.

What happened

Michael Block, Attorney at Law, P.C., a law firm, alleges that its insurance contract with Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. covers income lost after its operations were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery while Hartford prepared a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They said discovery would be expensive and that the motion would address whether the complaint stated a valid claim.

The court granted the application to stay discovery pending the motion to dismiss. Judge Andrew L. Carter issued the ruling.

The detailed version

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

Case
Michael Block, Attorney at Law v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09302
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Apr. 13, 2021

Background

The filing concerns a COVID-19 insurance-coverage dispute brought by Michael Block, Attorney at Law, P.C., doing business as the Law Office of Michael Block. The plaintiff alleges that its insurance contract with Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. provides coverage for income it lost when its operations were suspended beginning in March 2020.

On April 7, 2021, the court authorized Hartford to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The parties expected the motion to be fully briefed by approximately May 18, 2021.

Request

The parties jointly requested a stay of discovery until the court decided the motion to dismiss. They agreed that discovery would impose substantial expense before the court addressed whether the amended complaint stated a claim for relief. They also stated that the motion’s outcome would likely guide the scope of discovery if the motion were denied.

The filing described rulings from other courts involving similar insurance-policy language, including whether coverage for “direct physical loss” or “direct physical damage” applies to business losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties disagreed about the merits of the forthcoming motion but agreed that a discovery stay was appropriate.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The filing therefore records a stay of discovery pending Hartford’s motion to dismiss; it does not decide the merits of the insurance-coverage dispute or the motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.