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 American Insurance Co. v. Selective Insurance Co. of America, Judge Engelmayer directed Zurich to respond to Selective’s discovery letter.
Zurich was directed to respond to Selective’s discovery letter. The requested production concerned documents in Zurich’s underwriting file, and the dispute could affect both insurance companies’ ability to obtain information in the case.
What happened
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of America concerns Selective’s request for documents from Zurich’s underwriting file about a contractor-controlled insurance program in the Zurich policy. Selective said those documents could show which entities were enrolled and therefore subject to an exclusion in Selective’s policy.
Selective said Zurich had objected to the requests and refused to produce underwriting documents. Selective asked the court to require Zurich to produce relevant, non-privileged, and properly limited documents. The opinion text does not show that the court granted or denied that request.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer directed Zurich to respond by December 1, 2022, and said the court would then resolve the discovery dispute and Zurich’s request for more time to complete discovery.
The detailed version
- Zurich American Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Company of America · No. 1:22-cv-01315
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
Selective submitted a letter concerning a discovery dispute with Zurich. Selective sought documents from Zurich’s underwriting file relating to the contractor-controlled insurance program in the Zurich policy. Its requests covered the program, the program manual, entities enrolled in the program, and entities excluded or rejected from enrollment.
Selective stated that Zurich responded with general objections and did not produce additional documents. Selective also stated that Zurich later told its counsel that it would not produce underwriting-file documents relating to the program.
Parties’ Positions
Selective argued that the requested documents were relevant to whether entities Zurich was defending were enrolled in the program and therefore subject to an exclusion in Selective’s policy. Selective also argued that the requests were narrowly limited to the program. It relied on the court’s earlier rulings that the program was relevant and that relevant underwriting materials were discoverable, subject to protection for sensitive or proprietary information.
The letter stated that Zurich had provided some additional information about entities enrolled in the program, but Selective argued that the responses left questions unanswered. Selective asked the court to compel Zurich to produce the requested documents.
Court’s Action
The court did not resolve the request to compel production in the text provided. Instead, the court directed Zurich to respond to Selective’s letter by December 1, 2022, and stated that it would thereafter resolve the discovery dispute and rule on Zurich’s letter motion for an extension of time to complete discovery.
This was a discovery-related procedural order, not a ruling granting or denying Selective’s request to compel production.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.