Blog Archives

Court Rejects Discovery Into Other Policies in Tornado Coverage Dispute

Posted on May 06, 2026 by Joshua Tumen, Marissa Cunha

In 5th and Main Condominium Association, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, 2026 WL 1103277 (M.D. Tenn. 2026), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the insured’s motion to compel discovery seeking information about alleged “mismatched exclusions” contained in other insurance policies issued by the insurer. The Court held that discovery into other policy forms, endorsements, or exclusions not contained in the policy at issue was not relevant to the interpretation of the insured’s policy and disproportionate to the needs of the case. About The Authors

Tagged with: Discovery, property damage, property insurance, Proportionality, Relevance
Posted in Uncategorized

Southern District Court of New York Permits Extensive Discovery of Reserve And Reinsurance Information in Bad Faith Litigation

Posted on July 31, 2025 by Tracey Jordan

In Mandarin Oriental, Inc. v. HDI Glob. Ins. Co. et al., Civil Action No. 23 Civ. 4951, 2025 WL 1638071 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025), the District Court of the Southern District of New York followed the modern trend and allowed discovery of reserve and reinsurance information in coverage litigation with allegations of bad faith. About The Author

Tagged with: Bad Faith, Discovery, reinsurance, reserve
Posted in Uncategorized

New York Ruling Could Significantly Impact Disclosure of Communications Between Insurer and Counsel

Posted on October 29, 2019 by Paul Ferland

A recent decision from one of New York’s trial courts of general jurisdiction could have a chilling effect on written communications between an insurer and its retained counsel during a claim investigation. In Otsuka America, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 4131024, Judge Andrea Masley of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, ruled that several communications between Crum & Forster (CF) and its attorney (including the attorney’s coverage opinion letter), were not privileged and must be produced. The Court found that CF retained counsel, in part, to provide an opinion on whether the insured’s claim was covered. Determining whether a claim is covered is part of the regular business of…