The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.

S.D. New York

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.

DecidedJune 24, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-01170

StatusUnknown

This text of The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. (The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.) 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 Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-01170-LTS ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Pending before the Court are three cross motions for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. In relevant part, Travelers moves for a declaration that the Defendants, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company (“ASCC”) and Great American Insurance Company (“GAIC”) each have a duty to defend 5541-1274 Fifth Avenue (“Fifth”) in the underlying state court action and that the Defendants’ coverage obligations are primary while Travelers’ coverage obligations are in excess. (See docket entry no. 37.) Travelers reasons that the Defendants’ respective coverage obligations are both “primary absent one of five [exceptions],” which do not apply to their obligation with respect to Fifth. (Docket entry no. 41 at 19-20.) Neither ASCC nor GAIC responded to this argument in their various briefs. (See docket entry nos. 44, 50, 54, 57.) The Court now requires supplemental briefing to further inform its consideration of this issue. The Parties are hereby directed to submit further briefing regarding the issue of whether any obligation for ASCC or GAIC to provide additional insured coverage for Fifth is primary, and whether Travelers’ obligation should be considered in excess over their respective obligations, by interpretation of the various “other insurance” clauses for each policy. See Sport Rock Int’l, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 65 A.D.3d 12, 18 (1st Dep’t. 2009). The Parties’ supplemental briefs are not to exceed six substantive pages and will be due according to the following schedule: GAIC and ASCC must each file a supplemental brief addressing Travelers’ arguments on this issue by July 1, 2024, Travelers’ responsive brief must be filed by

July 9, 2024. Should a defendant insurer fail to respond to this Order in the timeline dictated, their argument will be considered waived with respect to this issue.

Dated: New York, New York June 24, 2024 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-01170-LTS ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Pending before the Court are three cross motions for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. In relevant part, Travelers moves for a declaration that the Defendants, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company (“ASCC”) and Great American Insurance Company (“GAIC”) each have a duty to defend 5541-1274 Fifth Avenue (“Fifth”) in the underlying state court action and that the Defendants’ coverage obligations are primary while Travelers’ coverage obligations are in excess. (See docket entry no. 37.) Travelers reasons that the Defendants’ respective coverage obligations are both “primary absent one of five [exceptions],” which do not apply to their obligation with respect to Fifth. (Docket entry no. 41 at 19-20.) Neither ASCC nor GAIC responded to this argument in their various briefs. (See docket entry nos. 44, 50, 54, 57.) The Court now requires supplemental briefing to further inform its consideration of this issue. The Parties are hereby directed to submit further briefing regarding the issue of whether any obligation for ASCC or GAIC to provide additional insured coverage for Fifth is primary, and whether Travelers’ obligation should be considered in excess over their respective obligations, by interpretation of the various “other insurance” clauses for each policy. See Sport Rock Int’l, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 65 A.D.3d 12, 18 (1st Dep’t. 2009). The Parties’ supplemental briefs are not to exceed six substantive pages and will be due according to the following schedule: GAIC and ASCC must each file a supplemental brief addressing Travelers’ arguments on this issue by July 1, 2024, Travelers’ responsive brief must be filed by

July 9, 2024. Should a defendant insurer fail to respond to this Order in the timeline dictated, their argument will be considered waived with respect to this issue.

Dated: New York, New York June 24, 2024 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-travelers-indemnity-company-of-america-v-accredited-surety-and-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack