La Porte Hospitality v. Renaissance Re Syndicate 1458 Lloyd's Case…

Background

La Porte Hospitality, LLC brought a first-party insurance dispute concerning the scope and amount of water damage at its hotel. The plaintiff said the damage occurred after fire-suppression-system pipes burst during Winter Storm Uri on February 15, 2021. The plaintiff sought documents concerning moisture mapping and the scope of water mitigation allegedly performed by Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc. (MKA), a third-party adjusting company retained by the defendants.

The plaintiff’s discovery requests sought claim-related documents and documents concerning engineers, experts, and other investigators or adjusters retained to handle the claim. The plaintiff also subpoenaed MKA, which produced photographs, a repair estimate, claim correspondence, and an invoice but did not produce documents directly concerning moisture mapping or water mitigation.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiff argued that three documents indicated the requested materials existed: an assignment letter directing MKA to provide moisture mapping, an adjuster’s report stating that a full moisture map had been completed, and a response to the plaintiff’s presuit demand stating that an MKA representative had conducted moisture mapping. The plaintiff argued that the documents were relevant and within the defendants’ possession, custody, or control because the defendants had retained MKA and had designated one of its representatives as a testifying expert.

The defendants said they were not withholding any moisture-mapping documents and that no such documents existed. Defense counsel stated that this had been confirmed through reviews of relevant files and a conversation with MKA. The defendants explained that moisture mapping had been considered before MKA’s inspection but was ultimately determined unnecessary because MKA found only minor, localized water damage. They argued that discovery rules do not require production of documents that do not exist.

Ruling

The court stated that the defendants had represented that they were not withholding moisture-mapping documents and that no moisture mapping had been performed. The court further stated that, if the plaintiff believed otherwise, it could investigate through relevant depositions or third-party discovery. The court concluded that there was nothing to order at that time and denied the application without prejudice to a later application if additional information demonstrated that the requested documents existed.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s ruling addressed the discovery dispute only; the opinion text does not state that the court decided the parties’ underlying insurance dispute.