Liberty Insurance Corporation v. New York Marine And General Insurance Company
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-01081
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Liberty Insurance v. New York Marine, Judge Cote denied Hudson Excess permission to move to quash a subpoena seeking Skittles’s deposition.
Hudson Excess Insurance Company was denied permission to move to quash Liberty’s subpoena to Skittles Service Corp. The ruling concerned discovery and did not decide the underlying insurance-coverage dispute.
What happened
Liberty Insurance Corporation sued several insurance companies seeking a contribution toward coverage for a shared policyholder in an underlying personal-injury case. Liberty subpoenaed Skittles, an insured of Hudson Excess, about contracts that might show whether another entity was an additional insured under Hudson’s policy.
Hudson sought permission to ask the court to cancel the subpoena. Liberty argued that the requested deposition was relevant, was not duplicative of testimony in the underlying case, and that Hudson’s request was untimely. Liberty also asked the court to require Skittles to appear, but the order’s stated disposition addresses Hudson’s request for permission to move to quash.
Judge Denise L. Cote denied Hudson Excess Insurance Company permission to move to quash the subpoena. The order did not decide whether Hudson owed insurance coverage or contribution, and the provided text does not state that the court separately ruled on Liberty’s request to require Skittles to appear.
The detailed version
- Liberty Insurance Corporation v. New York Marine And General Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-01081
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Liberty Insurance Corporation brought this insurance-coverage dispute against New York Marine and General Insurance Company, American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, and Hudson Excess Insurance Company. Liberty sought co-insurance contribution for a common insured, 45 John NY LLC, in connection with an underlying tort action pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County.
Liberty said a key coverage issue was whether Hudson’s named insured, Skittles Service Corp., had agreed in writing to include 45 John as an additional insured. Liberty served Skittles with a subpoena for a deposition concerning the contracts related to the project. The letter states that Skittles did not appear on the noticed date and that a lawyer who said he represented Skittles did not later provide an adjourned date.
The discovery dispute
Hudson asked for permission to file a motion to quash, meaning to cancel or limit, the subpoena. Liberty opposed that request. Liberty argued that the deposition would concern insurance-related contract issues rather than the accident-related issues addressed in an earlier deposition of Isaias Barrera Perez. Liberty also argued that the subpoena was not improper because Skittles may have been dissolved, and that Hudson’s request was untimely because the subpoena’s return date had already passed.
Liberty further argued that a pending summary-judgment motion in the underlying state-court action did not stay discovery in this federal case. It asked the court to direct Skittles to comply with the subpoena.
Ruling
Judge Denise L. Cote’s order states: “Permission for Hudson Excess Insurance Company to move to quash the subpoena is denied.” The provided text does not show a separate ruling on Liberty’s request to direct Skittles to appear. The order also did not decide the underlying questions of insurance coverage, additional-insured status, or contribution.
Classification basis
This is a procedural discovery order. It resolved whether Hudson could seek to quash a subpoena, rather than deciding the parties’ underlying insurance-coverage dispute.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.