Federico and Company LLC v. Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-04411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Federico and Company v. Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad, Judge Subramanian scheduled briefing and a hearing on Federico’s motion to strike two fraud-related defenses.
Federico and Company LLC d/b/a M&W Suppliers and Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad; the order set the schedule for Federico’s motion challenging Zurich’s two affirmative defenses but did not resolve that motion.
What happened
Federico and Company LLC, doing business as M&W Suppliers, asked the court in Federico and Company LLC v. Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad to remove two defenses from Zurich’s answer. The defenses asserted that insurance coverage was void because of fraud, misrepresentations, omissions, or concealment of facts.
Federico argued that Zurich had not provided the specific facts required when alleging fraud, such as what was said or omitted, when and where it occurred, who was responsible, and how the conduct affected Zurich. Federico asked the court to strike the defenses and allow Zurich to amend them.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered a hearing and set a deadline for Zurich’s response. The supplied text does not show a decision granting or denying Federico’s motion.
The detailed version
- Federico and Company LLC v. Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad · No. 1:23-cv-04411
- Subramanian
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
Federico and Company LLC, doing business as M&W Suppliers, filed a motion to strike two affirmative defenses in Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad’s answer. An affirmative defense is a reason a defendant gives for why the plaintiff should not prevail even if the complaint’s allegations are accepted for purposes of the defense. The challenged defenses were Zurich’s Seventh and Twenty-First Affirmative Defenses.
The Seventh Defense stated that the claims were barred because coverage under the policy was void from the beginning as a result of the named insured CRY Respond Sdn Bhd’s fraudulent acts, material misrepresentations, or omissions. The Twenty-First Defense similarly stated that coverage was void from inception because an insured materially misrepresented, failed to disclose, or concealed material facts from Zurich before the policies began.
Plaintiff’s argument
Federico argued that the defenses alleged fraud and therefore had to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). That rule requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. Federico contended that Zurich’s defenses did not identify the specific facts needed to understand the alleged fraud and prepare a defense, including the statements or omissions involved, when and where they occurred, who made or concealed them, how they misled Zurich, and what resulted from them.
Federico requested that the court strike the Seventh and Twenty-First Affirmative Defenses and allow Zurich to amend them. The letter also referred to an insurance loss of $7,747,965.
Court’s action
The supplied text is a notice of motion and a scheduling order, not a decision on the motion’s merits. Judge Arun Subramanian ordered a hearing on the motion and required any response to be no more than five pages and to be filed by February 5, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. The hearing date is unclear in the supplied text because that portion is corrupted. The text does not state that the motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.