99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company

Background

99 Wall Development Inc. brought an insurance dispute against Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, formerly known as Darwin National Assurance Company. The dispute involved losses from water events during a rehabilitation and renovation project. The parties had previously filed summary-judgment motions by a court-ordered deadline of September 14, 2020.

Allied World asked for permission to file another motion for summary judgment. According to 99 Wall’s response, Allied World claimed it had only recently learned that 99 Wall’s breach-of-contract claim included a demand for payment of its full repair costs. Allied World also asserted that the insurance policy presented an unresolved legal question about coverage for certain repair costs that had been described as “general conditions.”

Arguments and court’s explanation

99 Wall opposed another motion. It argued that its complaint had identified construction costs to repair the physical damage and that the court had previously recognized two parts of its claim: repair costs and costs connected to delays in completing the project. 99 Wall maintained that Allied World had already had an opportunity to seek summary judgment on repair costs and that allowing a late motion would cause unnecessary delay.

99 Wall also argued that the policy’s Rehabilitation and Renovation Endorsement provided broader coverage than the basic Builders Risk Form. The opinion text shows that 99 Wall made these policy arguments, but the ruling did not decide the disputed coverage issue on the merits.

The court stated that Allied World’s request to file an additional summary-judgment motion was denied. The court noted that 99 Wall had demanded payment for repair costs in its complaint and that Allied World had an opportunity to move for summary judgment on those costs in its initial motion. Although the court had previously noted that Allied World made payments for repair costs, it had not ruled that those costs were fully paid. To the extent the parties disputed whether particular damages were repair costs or delay damages, the court stated that they could resolve that issue at trial.

Disposition

The court denied Allied World’s request to file an additional motion for summary judgment. The provided opinion text does not clearly state a separate ruling on 99 Wall’s alternative request for an extension of the pretrial-filing deadlines.