Sordoni Constr. Co. v Chartis Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sordoni Constr. Co. v Chartis Ins. Co. 2019 NY Slip Op 33784(U) December 24, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 452106/2016 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 INDEX NO. 452106/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 46 ----------------------------------~----x SORDONI CONSTRUCTION CO. and OLD·· REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORP., Index No. 452106/2016 Plaintiffs DECISION AND ORDER - against CHARTIS INSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, CANATAL STEEL USA INC., WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFETY AND QUALITY PLUS, INC., WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, NORTH AMERICAN IRON WORKS, INC. and CANAL STEEL, INC. I . I Defendants ----------------------------------~----x LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: Plaintiffs move to lift the automatic stay of disclosure pending the litigation a_nd determination of defendant Western Heritage Insurance Company's· motion for summary judgment dismissing th_e claims against this one defendant. The court grants plaintiffs' motion for three reasons.· C.P.L.R. § 3214(b); Polsky v. 145 Hudson St. Assoc.'. L.P;, 100 A.D.3d 426, 426 (1st Dep ' t 2O12 ) . I. REASONS TO LIFT THE STAY OF DISCLOSURE First, disclosure has lagged far behind in this 2016 action where the parties have conducted only one deposition, due in large part to Western Heritage's noncompliance with repeated orders requiring its disclosure. Whether the court denies Western Heritage's motion or grants it, and the action still continues against the other defendants~ 1 sordonil219 .! 2 of 7 it must progress with [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 INDEX NO. 452106/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 disclosure in the meantime. Second, not only will plaintiffs' claims against the other / defendants survive Western Heritage's motion for summary judgment, but so may survive. plainti~fs_' claims against Western Heritage Western Heritage previously moved ·for summary judgment, but withdrew the motion due to deficiencies in Western Heritage's prima facie defense and impediments posed by other parties' opposition. While Western Heritage may have cured those deficiencies and overcome those impediments in part, Western i Heritage's descriptiori of the changes in its m~tion that is not yet before the court is unconvincing as to the motion's prospective sutcess. Whil~ the parties' depositions may provide only hearsay recitations of the governing insurance policies, other contracts, and denials or disclaimers of insurance coverage, which all speak for themselves, Western Heri~age fails to show that it has produced all such relevant documents. These documents are necessary for plaintiffs and co-defendants to oppose Western Heritage's motion f<?r summary judgment. Therefor·e the need for this disclosure to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment disc~osure. is a third reason to permit that C.P.L.R. § 3212(f); Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC, 161 A.D.3d 666, ·667 (1st Dep't 2018; Baghban v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 586, 586 (1st Dep't 2016); Rodriguez Pastor v. DeGaetano, 128 A.D.3d 218, · 227-28 (1st Dep't 2015); Figueroa v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 438, 43Q (1st Dep't 2015) sordonil219 2 3 of 7 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM INDEX NO. 452106/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 II. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 THE DISCLOSURE NEEDED western Heritage has withheld and redacted documents from its claim file that plaintiffs have requested, but which i t maintains are privileged, without producing a privilege log, or are irrelevant,· because they post-date its denial of c·overage to plaintiffs. Western Heritage also has provided an affidavit of a search for further non-privileged, relevant documents, finding none. First, to the extent that Western Heritage claims the documents plaintiffs seek are privileged or protected under C.P.L.R. § 3101(c) or (d) (2), Westerp Heritage still must review the documents that plaintiffs have requested, ascertain whether any requested documents are not privileged or protected, produce any such documents, C.P.L.R. § 3120(1) (i), and otherwise respond by specifying an applicable privilege or protection in a privilege log. C.P.L.R. § 3122(a) (1) and (b). g__,_g_,_, Stephen v. State of New· York, 117 A.D.3d 820, 820-21 (2d Dep't 2014); Ural v. Encompass Ins; Co. of Am., 97 A.D.3d 562, 56.6-67 (2d Dep't 2012). The privilege log must include the type of document, the subject, the date of the document, and other information necessary to identify the document, including the persons to whom it was sent or, from whom it was received. C.P.L.R. § 3122(b). Second, Western Heritage fails to show that documents created after its denial of coverage will not lead to evidence about its handling of plaintiffs' claim and formulation of its position on coverage before denying coverage or about relevant sordoni1219 3 4 of 7 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 INDEX NO. 452106/2016 .- RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 .J-. issues other than its coverage position. Therefore Western Heritage must produce all documents pre-dating plaintiffs' commencement of this action that plaintiffs have requested. Finally, the parties are entitled at minimum to examine western Heritage at a deposition concerning the claim file documents in Western.Heritage's possession, custody, or control; its search for do6uments; and the reasons for the exc~ssive time Western Heritage took to issue its denial. I No other party has shown why its deposition may not proceed as well. Defendants Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and its insured Safety and Quality Plus, Inc., oppose their depositions, insisting that plaintiffs' claims against these defendants are unsustainable because the court in the underling action where plaintiffs seek coverage has determined that Safety and Quality Plus was not negligent. Therefore it is not liable for non-contractual indemnification or contribution to plaintiffs or co-defendants, but this determination does not bear on whether it is liable for contractual indemnification, including defense expenses, which Westchester·surplus Lines would be responsible to cover, or breach of a.contract to procure insurance. In sum, these defendants fall far short of the extraordinary showing required for a protective order against parties' depositions, see Lipin v. Bender, 84 N.Y_.2d 562, 570 (1994); Jones v. Maples, 257 A.D.2d 53, 56 (1st bep't 1999), "to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person," and do not even move for such sordonil219 4 5 of 7 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 relief. INDEX NO. 452106/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 C.P.L.R. § 3103(a). See Emile v. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of New York City, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 297, 298 (1st Dep't 2002). "Any party may take the testimony of any person by deposition," without an initial showing of materiality. § 3106. C.P.L.R. See Seltzer v. Bayer, 272 A.D.2d 263, 266 (1st Dep't 2000); Fasciglione v. D.C.D. Advert., Ltd., 256 A.D.2d 215, 215 (1st Dep't 1998). III. CONCLUSION Consequently, consistent with the Status Conference Order dated December 12, 2019 '· pending the determination of defendant Western Heritage Insurance Company's motion for .summary judgment, and in light of the expectation that the court will not grant· summary judgment dismissing all claims, the court grants plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of disclosure to the following extent. C.P.L.R. § 3214(b); P6lsky v. 145 Hudson St. Assoc., L.P., 100 A.D.3d at 426. Defendant Western Heritage Insurance Company shall produce the documents specified above and the required privilege log by January 10, 2020. The deposition of plaintiff Sordoni Construction Co. shall proceed January 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The deposition of defendant Chartis Insurance Co. of Canada shall proceed January 13, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The depositions of defendants Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Safety and Quality Plus, Inc., shall proceed January 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The deposition of defendant Western Heritage Insurance Company shall proceed January 30, 2020, at 10:00 q.m. sordoni1219 If its motion for summary 5 6 of 7 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2020 10:13 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 204 INDEX NO. 452106/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2020 judgment is submitted sufficiently in advance, the motion will be scheduled to be heard January 23, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., at which time, when all parties' positions on the motion are fully before . . ) the court, Western Heritage Insurance Company may revisit whether reinstatement of a stay against its deposition is warranted. DATED: December 24, 2019 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY BfLUNGS sordonil219 6 7 of 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.