Zurich American Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of America
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-01315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zurich v. Selective, Judge Engelmayer declined to strike two deposition topics but limited their scope and required counsel to confer.
Zurich American Insurance Company and Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast, concerning Selective’s proposed corporate-representative deposition of Zurich.
What happened
In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast, the court addressed a dispute about Selective’s notice to question Zurich’s corporate representative about insurance policies, certificates, and coverage involving six Zurich-insured entities. Zurich said two topics were vague and irrelevant.
Selective argued that the topics could provide information about the parties’ insurance obligations and whether the entities were covered by Zurich. Selective also said it might narrow its questions or abandon one topic if Zurich agreed that the entities were covered by Zurich’s insurance program.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer declined to strike the two topics. He limited the questioning to the parties’ obligations to the six Zurich-insured entities during and in connection with the events at issue, and ordered counsel to confer promptly to clarify the questions and consider stipulations.
The detailed version
- Zurich American Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of America · No. 1:22-cv-01315
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
The court considered letters concerning a discovery dispute. Selective had served a notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to require a corporation to designate a representative to testify about specified matters. The notice sought information about, among other things, Zurich’s investigation of alleged accidents and the scope of coverage provided by Zurich and other insurers.
Zurich asked the court to strike two topics from the notice: the Zurich commercial general liability policy issued to Skanska/Walsh J.V. and all certificates of insurance issued in connection with Zurich’s Contractor Controlled Insurance Program. Zurich argued that the topics were vaguely worded and sought irrelevant information. Zurich also stated that it could not determine what testimony Selective sought about the liability policy and that there was no dispute that Zurich had agreed to provide defense and indemnity to the Zurich-insured entities.
Positions and legal standard
Selective argued that the liability policy was relevant to the scope of Zurich’s obligations, the entities’ enrollment in Zurich’s insurance program, and Selective’s obligations to those entities. Selective argued that the insurance certificates were relevant to whether the entities were covered by Zurich. Selective said it might limit its questioning about the liability policy and forgo questioning about the certificates if Zurich stipulated that the entities were covered by Zurich’s program.
The court explained that a Rule 30(b)(6) notice must describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity. Discovery must also be relevant and material to the claims and allegations at issue and may not be overly broad. The notice must identify the outer limits of the areas of inquiry.
Ruling
The court found that Selective had a proper purpose for designating both topics because they appeared reasonably calculated to seek admissible evidence about the scope of Selective’s obligations to entities insured by Zurich. But the court concluded that the topics, as written, could encompass unrelated matters and unnecessarily complicate Zurich’s preparation of its witnesses.
The court therefore declined to strike the two topics. It ordered that questioning be limited to the scope of Zurich’s and Selective’s obligations to the six Zurich-insured entities at the time of and in connection with the events at issue. It also ordered counsel to confer promptly and in good faith to clarify the intended areas of questioning within topics (3) and (6) and to consider stipulations that could eliminate or narrow some questions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.