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 Travelers v. Trisura, Judge Engelmayer extended discovery only for one policy, denied Trisura leave to file a motion to compel or request a conference.
The parties to the insurance coverage dispute, particularly Trisura’s requests for additional discovery and TICA’s obligation to produce the Nightingale Policy.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company is a declaratory insurance case involving Trisura’s duty to defend a non-party. Trisura sought 60 more days of fact discovery and permission to seek court help over TICA’s refusal to produce a policy, a claim file, and claim notes. TICA agreed to provide the policy but disputed having to produce the claim materials.
The court agreed with TICA that the claim materials did not relate to the duty-to-defend question. Under New York law, that duty is determined from the allegations in the underlying pleadings, including whether those allegations could possibly fall within the insurance policy. The court said information in the claim materials would not affect that analysis.
Judge Engelmayer extended fact discovery until January 24, 2022, solely so TICA could provide the policy, and denied Trisura’s request for permission to file a motion to compel or have a court conference about the dispute. He also postponed the case-management conference to March 7, 2022, and terminated the pending motion.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Trisura Specialty Insurance… · No. 1:21-cv-04327
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Trisura asked for a 60-day extension of fact discovery and permission either to file a motion to compel or to hold a conference with the court regarding a discovery dispute. Trisura contended that TICA had improperly refused to produce the Nightingale Policy and the claim file and claim notes referred to as the Claim Documents. TICA later agreed to provide the Nightingale Policy. TICA maintained, among other things, that the Claim Documents were not relevant to whether Trisura had a duty to defend non-party Reidy Contracting Corp.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery in the case was limited to the question of Trisura’s duty to defend. Applying New York law, the court stated that an insurer’s duty to defend is measured by the allegations in the underlying pleadings. The duty applies even when the pleadings create only a possible basis for coverage, and an insurer must defend when the claim, viewed liberally, falls within the policy’s coverage, regardless of whether the underlying lawsuit is groundless or false.
The court concluded that the Claim Documents would not affect the duty-to-defend question. That question would be resolved by liberally construing the underlying claim, so facts revealed in those documents did not bear on the issue.
Order
The court extended the fact-discovery deadline until January 24, 2022, for the sole purpose of allowing TICA to produce the Nightingale Policy. It denied Trisura’s motion for leave to file a motion to compel or to hold a conference. The court adjourned the case-management conference from February 4, 2022, to March 7, 2022, at 2 p.m., to be held by telephone, and directed that the access instructions remain those previously provided. The court also required any party wishing to move for summary judgment to file a letter under the court’s Individual Rule 3(H) by February 18, 2022. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 23. New York law applied because the case was a declaratory action arising from an underlying case in New York State Supreme Court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.