Primed Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company

Background

PriMed brought a breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment action against Starr concerning Starr’s alleged duty to defend and indemnify PriMed in the Abbott Litigation, a pending trademark case. In an earlier ruling, the court granted PriMed’s motion for summary judgment and held that Starr had a duty to defend PriMed. PriMed later moved for monetary damages representing the legal fees it paid for its defense.

PriMed sought $357,500. The amount came from monthly flat-fee payments of $6,500 for services provided from April 2016 through December 2020, reduced by a $13,000 courtesy discount. The invoices stated only that they were for services rendered in the Abbott Litigation and did not list individual tasks, dates, or hours. PriMed submitted declarations from its owner and attorney, an expert report addressing the reasonableness of the attorneys’ rates, engagement letters, and the flat-fee invoices, but no contemporaneous time records for the claimed damages.

Arguments

PriMed argued that proof that it paid the fees was enough to satisfy its initial documentation burden and that its submissions showed the fees were reasonable and necessary. Starr argued that the motion should be denied because PriMed had not provided information identifying the dates of the work, the hours spent, or the nature of the services performed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an insurer that breaches its duty to defend may be required to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred by the insured. Under New York law, the party seeking fees must provide enough information for the court to assess the nature and necessity of the work and the time reasonably required. Contemporaneous time records were not strictly required here, but some sufficiently detailed billing records or equivalent documentation were still necessary.

The court accepted that PriMed’s flat-fee invoices satisfied its initial burden and that the fees were presumptively reasonable after Starr breached its duty to defend. But PriMed still had to provide definite information allowing the court to evaluate the fees. The attorney declaration described the attorneys and stages of the underlying litigation but did not identify the tasks performed or hours expended. The owner’s declaration also lacked those details, and the expert report addressed the hourly rates without explaining the number of hours worked. The flat-fee invoices were likewise too general for the court to determine whether the requested fees were reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied PriMed’s Damages Motion without prejudice. The court allowed PriMed to renew its request for the claimed damages if it can provide billing records or other documentation sufficient to evaluate both the hourly rates and the hours expended. The court directed PriMed to state by February 8, 2024, whether it intended to renew the motion and, if so, to propose a briefing schedule with Starr. The court also directed the clerk to close the docket entry for the motion.