The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co.

S.D. New York

The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co.

DecidedSeptember 17, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-03924

StatusUnknown

This text of The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co. (The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

A HH | N Cc K L fe Y 20 Church Street ZA A L L E N Hartford, CT 06103 p: 860-725-6200 f: 860-278-3802 hinckleyallen.com Peter J. Martin, Partner Direct: 860-331-2726 pmartin@hinckleyallen.com

September 16, 2025 REQUEST GRANTED. VIA ECF The Court approves the 90 day extension to the discovery H ble Lewis J. Li deadlines as proposed. The Post-Discovery Status Conference onorable Lewis «Liman previously set for January 6, 2026 is rescheduled to April 7, United States District Court 2026 at 2:00PM. Southern District of New York 9/17/2025 ORDERED. Ay 40 Foley Square, Room 435 Mf Vc New York, New York 10007 —. a SG GN United States District Judge Re: The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co. C.A,. No. 1:25-cev-03924 Dear Judge Liman: We represent the Plaintiff, The Morganti Group, Inc. (““Morganti’”), in the above-referenced action. We write to request (i) a ninety-day stay! of this action, or, in the alternative, (ii) a ninety- day extension of the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (“CMP”) (Dkt. 19). This is the first request for a stay or an extension of the CMP. We have conferred with counsel for defendant, Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich”), who advise that Zurich has no objection to this request. The reason for this request is that shortly after the commencement of this lawsuit, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement framework that would fully dispose of this case. However, a non-party to this lawsuit, J&A Concrete Corp. (“J&A”), very recently expressed its intent to assert a claim against Zurich relating to the same loss at issue in this case. As explained further below, Morganti 1s attempting to resolve the issue with J&A, but needs more time to do so. It is anticipated that a resolution of the J&A claim will lead to a full resolution of this action.

'“A district court may stay an action pursuant to ‘the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Readick v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 3988 (PGG), 2014 WL 1683799, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2014) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Courts in the Second Circuit apply the following factors when deciding a motion to stay a civil action: “(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A, Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 99 F. Supp. 3d 288, 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). Courts routinely exercise their power to grant a stay when a settlement could affect the case. See e.g. Albert v. Blue Diamond Growers, 232 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 66614617 v1

Southern District of New York September 16, 2025 Page 2 By way of background, this is an insurance coverage case arising from a construction project. Morganti served as the prime contractor on a construction project known as PS 138X (Bronx), located at 2060 Lafayette Avenue, Bronx, New York (the “Project”). Non-party, J&A, was a subcontractor to Morganti. On behalf of the Project owner, Zurich furnished an Owner- Controlled Insurance Program policy, which included first-party Builder’s Risk property insurance policy (the “Policy”). Morganti is an additional insured under the Policy and we understand that J&A contends it also is an additional insured under the Policy. In connection with the Project, J&A was tasked with, among other things, engineering and constructing formwork (i.e. molds into which concrete is precast or cast-in-place) and pouring concrete. J&A’s pouring of a concrete slab on July 7, 2023 at the roof level of the Project resulted in property damage (the “Loss”). As noted, Morganti submitted a claim to Zurich under the Builder’s Risk policy for damages sustained due to the Loss. Morganti’s claim included a pass-through claim from J&A relating to the Loss. Zurich denied Morganti’s claim based on what it contends was an exclusion in the Policy. Morganti thereafter commenced this action on May 12, 2025 seeking $2.6 million in damages against Zurich under the Policy. Morganti and Zurich have agreed in principle to a settlement framework to resolve this action. However, in order to fully resolve this matter, J&A’s claim on the Policy, which is included as part of Morganti’s claim, must also be resolved. To date, J&A has not agreed to a resolution of its claim. In fact, we understand that J&A indicated it will file a separate lawsuit against Zurich relating to Zurich’s Policy. Morganti and J&A have had settlement discussions and are working toward developing a framework to resolve their dispute, including possibly engaging in mediation. A ninety-day stay or extension of the CMP would provide Morganti with the necessary additional time to negotiate and attempt to reach a resolution of the dispute with J&A. Without achieving a resolution of J&A’s claim, Zurich and Morganti would be unable to finalize their settlement, causing this case to proceed in litigation. The parties would like to avoid expending the cost and effort of litigating this action at this time and instead allow Morganti and J&A additional time to further their settlement discussions in an effort to reach a full resolution of that dispute and, in turn, a full resolution of this action. If the Court is inclined to extend the deadlines in the CMP instead of issuing a stay, we jointly propose the following extended CMP deadlines: Activity Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Written Discovery Served 8/22/2025 11/22/2025 Fact Discovery 11/19/2025 2/17/2026 Depositions 11/19/2025 2/17/2026 Requests to Admit 9/25/2025 12/24/2025 Southern District of New York September 16, 2025 Page 3 Expert Discovery 1/3/2026 4/3/2026 All Discovery 1/3/2026 4/3/2026 Post-Discovery Status Conference 1/6/2026 TBD by Court Summary Judgment Motions 1/17/2026 4/17/2026 Thank you for the Court’s consideration of this request and attention to this matter. Respectfully, HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP Peter J. Martin Peter J. Martin cc: Philip Silverberg PSilverberg@moundcotton.com Hilary Henkind HHenkind@moundcotton.com

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A HH | N Cc K L fe Y 20 Church Street ZA A L L E N Hartford, CT 06103 p: 860-725-6200 f: 860-278-3802 hinckleyallen.com Peter J. Martin, Partner Direct: 860-331-2726 pmartin@hinckleyallen.com

September 16, 2025 REQUEST GRANTED. VIA ECF The Court approves the 90 day extension to the discovery H ble Lewis J. Li deadlines as proposed. The Post-Discovery Status Conference onorable Lewis «Liman previously set for January 6, 2026 is rescheduled to April 7, United States District Court 2026 at 2:00PM. Southern District of New York 9/17/2025 ORDERED. Ay 40 Foley Square, Room 435 Mf Vc New York, New York 10007 —. a SG GN United States District Judge Re: The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co. C.A,. No. 1:25-cev-03924 Dear Judge Liman: We represent the Plaintiff, The Morganti Group, Inc. (““Morganti’”), in the above-referenced action. We write to request (i) a ninety-day stay! of this action, or, in the alternative, (ii) a ninety- day extension of the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (“CMP”) (Dkt. 19). This is the first request for a stay or an extension of the CMP. We have conferred with counsel for defendant, Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich”), who advise that Zurich has no objection to this request. The reason for this request is that shortly after the commencement of this lawsuit, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement framework that would fully dispose of this case. However, a non-party to this lawsuit, J&A Concrete Corp. (“J&A”), very recently expressed its intent to assert a claim against Zurich relating to the same loss at issue in this case. As explained further below, Morganti 1s attempting to resolve the issue with J&A, but needs more time to do so. It is anticipated that a resolution of the J&A claim will lead to a full resolution of this action.

'“A district court may stay an action pursuant to ‘the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Readick v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 3988 (PGG), 2014 WL 1683799, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2014) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Courts in the Second Circuit apply the following factors when deciding a motion to stay a civil action: “(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A, Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 99 F. Supp. 3d 288, 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). Courts routinely exercise their power to grant a stay when a settlement could affect the case. See e.g. Albert v. Blue Diamond Growers, 232 F. Supp. 3d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 66614617 v1

Southern District of New York September 16, 2025 Page 2 By way of background, this is an insurance coverage case arising from a construction project. Morganti served as the prime contractor on a construction project known as PS 138X (Bronx), located at 2060 Lafayette Avenue, Bronx, New York (the “Project”). Non-party, J&A, was a subcontractor to Morganti. On behalf of the Project owner, Zurich furnished an Owner- Controlled Insurance Program policy, which included first-party Builder’s Risk property insurance policy (the “Policy”). Morganti is an additional insured under the Policy and we understand that J&A contends it also is an additional insured under the Policy. In connection with the Project, J&A was tasked with, among other things, engineering and constructing formwork (i.e. molds into which concrete is precast or cast-in-place) and pouring concrete. J&A’s pouring of a concrete slab on July 7, 2023 at the roof level of the Project resulted in property damage (the “Loss”). As noted, Morganti submitted a claim to Zurich under the Builder’s Risk policy for damages sustained due to the Loss. Morganti’s claim included a pass-through claim from J&A relating to the Loss. Zurich denied Morganti’s claim based on what it contends was an exclusion in the Policy. Morganti thereafter commenced this action on May 12, 2025 seeking $2.6 million in damages against Zurich under the Policy. Morganti and Zurich have agreed in principle to a settlement framework to resolve this action. However, in order to fully resolve this matter, J&A’s claim on the Policy, which is included as part of Morganti’s claim, must also be resolved. To date, J&A has not agreed to a resolution of its claim. In fact, we understand that J&A indicated it will file a separate lawsuit against Zurich relating to Zurich’s Policy. Morganti and J&A have had settlement discussions and are working toward developing a framework to resolve their dispute, including possibly engaging in mediation. A ninety-day stay or extension of the CMP would provide Morganti with the necessary additional time to negotiate and attempt to reach a resolution of the dispute with J&A. Without achieving a resolution of J&A’s claim, Zurich and Morganti would be unable to finalize their settlement, causing this case to proceed in litigation. The parties would like to avoid expending the cost and effort of litigating this action at this time and instead allow Morganti and J&A additional time to further their settlement discussions in an effort to reach a full resolution of that dispute and, in turn, a full resolution of this action. If the Court is inclined to extend the deadlines in the CMP instead of issuing a stay, we jointly propose the following extended CMP deadlines: Activity Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Written Discovery Served 8/22/2025 11/22/2025 Fact Discovery 11/19/2025 2/17/2026 Depositions 11/19/2025 2/17/2026 Requests to Admit 9/25/2025 12/24/2025 Southern District of New York September 16, 2025 Page 3 Expert Discovery 1/3/2026 4/3/2026 All Discovery 1/3/2026 4/3/2026 Post-Discovery Status Conference 1/6/2026 TBD by Court Summary Judgment Motions 1/17/2026 4/17/2026 Thank you for the Court’s consideration of this request and attention to this matter. Respectfully, HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP Peter J. Martin Peter J. Martin cc: Philip Silverberg PSilverberg@moundcotton.com Hilary Henkind HHenkind@moundcotton.com

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Morganti Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins, Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-morganti-group-inc-v-zurich-american-ins-co-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack