The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance…
The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-04327
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company, Judge Engelmayer ordered a response before deciding Trisura’s discovery requests.
Travelers Indemnity Company of America must explain its refusal to provide the requested documents; Trisura Specialty Insurance Company’s requests for a discovery extension and further discovery relief remained pending in the provided text.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company concerns a dispute over insurance-related documents in discovery. Trisura said Travelers did not produce records about another policy and claim involving NG300.
Trisura asked for a 60-day extension of fact discovery and permission to seek an order requiring Travelers to provide the documents, or alternatively a court conference. Travelers said it was not required to provide records held by an affiliated company.
The court directed Travelers to file a letter explaining its refusal to provide the requested documents and said it would then rule on Trisura’s letter motion. Judge Engelmayer had not yet decided the requested extension or discovery relief in the text provided.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance… · No. 1:21-cv-04327
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 27, 2021
Background
The text provided is a letter from Trisura Specialty Insurance Company to the court. Trisura asked for a 60-day extension of the fact-discovery deadline, permission to file a motion to compel Travelers Indemnity Company of America to provide discovery, or a conference with the court about the dispute.
Trisura said Travelers’ interrogatory responses identified only a policy issued to Reidy and did not identify other potentially relevant insurance policies. Trisura later learned about a policy issued to NG300 by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, an affiliated Travelers entity. Trisura also said Travelers had accepted a tender involving NG300 under that policy and had requested the related claim file.
Trisura argued that the NG300 policy, claim file, and claim notes were relevant to whether coverage was available and which policy would respond first. It contended that Travelers had possession, custody, or control of the affiliate’s records because of the relationship between the Travelers entities and because Travelers employees had exchanged information about the claim.
Travelers maintained, according to Trisura’s letter, that it did not have to provide materials concerning the NG300 policy or claim because Travelers Indemnity Company of America did not issue the policy and did not insure NG300 as a named insured. Trisura also reported that Travelers had produced some Reidy claim notes but continued to resist producing the NG300 materials.
Court’s Action
The court directed Travelers to file a letter explaining its refusal to provide the requested documents. The court stated that it would then rule on Trisura’s letter motion.
The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Trisura’s requested discovery extension, granted or denied permission to file a motion to compel, or otherwise resolved the discovery dispute. The date appearing in the court’s directive is partially obscured in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.