Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2024

The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. State National Insurance Company

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-03080
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureInsurance
In one sentence

In Charter Oak Fire v. State National, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by March 21, 2024.

Who this affects

The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company and State National Insurance Company.

What happened

The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. State National Insurance Company involved a letter from State National informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to either party. The order allowed either party to ask to restore the case to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but the request had to be made by March 21, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil stated that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened through that procedure.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. State National Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-03080
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 20, 2024

Background

The court received a letter filed by State National Insurance Company stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by March 21, 2024.

The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.