The Travelers Indemnity Company v. State National Insurance Company; Markel American Insurance Company

□□□ ~ - pee oe - □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POL aeee enlist SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HiLvits | iS acer - ig bee ye THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-CV-10866-CM ‘ Plaintiff, □ amie | \ -against- : te i| □ STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY □□□ ).EN7 lf \ MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY TRCNIC. “LYFILED |] Defendants. act | i —|! onan teens □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ MULES | 5b PX || JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ( Plaintiff, The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), along with Defendants =) q National Insurance Company (“SNIC”) and Markel American Insurance Company (“MAIC”) □ (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel. hereby respectfully move this Court to enter a stay of this action pending completion of discovery in the Underlying Action. As support for this Motion, the Parties state as follows: : 1; In this declaratory judgment action, Travelers seeks a declaration that Defendant SNIC and Defendant MAIC have defense and indemnity obligations in connection with an y underlying tort action captioned Timothy Spaun v. Rockefeller Group et al. in the Supreme Court { a of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 154959/2021 (the “Underlying Action”). 2. More specifically, Travelers seeks a declaration that SNIC is obligated to defend □□ and indemnify JRM Construction Management, LLC (“JRM”), Office of the Commissioner of \ Baseball d/b/a Major League Baseball and MLB Advanced Media, LP (together as “MLB”), Rockefeller Group and Rockefeller Center North, Inc. (together as “Rockefeller”) (all collectively as “Underlying Defendants”) in connection with the Underlying Action. aaesth he Min Bom fh b OG 4, eon Ly fan anpe gel Ten. bh. allt □ 3. Travelers further seeks a declaration that MAIC is obligated to provide coverage in connection with the Underlying Action once the applicable limits of underlying coverage are exhausted. 4. SNIC and MAIC have denied the substantive/material allegations in Travelers’ Complaint. a SNIC issued an insurance policy to DAL Electrical Corp. (“DAL”) providing commercial general liability coverage for the policy period February 1, 2019 to February 1, 2020 under policy number PSI 1900155 (the “SNIC Policy”). MAIC issued an Excess Insurance Policy to Named Insured DAL bearing policy number MKLM1EUL100687 for the same policy period. 6. The relevant additional insured endorsement in the SNIC Policy states that it applies where SNIC’s insured has agreed by written contract to provide coverage and applies only “with respect to operations performed by or on behalf of’ DAL and “with respect to occurrences subsequent to the making of such written contract.” a Presently, there is a factual dispute in the Underlying Action regarding whether the alleged occurrence was subsequent to the making of a written contract between Travelers’ insured, JRM, and Defendants’ insured, DAL. 8. The parties in the Underlying Action have been conducting depositions that are critical to the factual dispute in this action. JRM’s deposition was held on November 5, 2024. 9, The parties in the Underlying Action were scheduled to take the deposition of DAL on February 6, 2024. Unfortunately, the deposition had to be postponed because counsel for one of the parties contracted COVID-19. The parties in the Underlying Action then rescheduled the deposition of DAL for March 31, 2025: however, it did not proceed on that date. 10. On March 26, 2025, DAL filed a third-party complaint in the Underlying Action against a new party, Adria Industrial Piping LTD (“Adria”), which further delayed completion of the depositions in the Underlying Action. Il. The Parties in the present declaratory judgment action, by and through undersigned counsel, represent that the delayed completion of discovery and depositions in the Underlying Action is wholly outside of their control. 12. Per the attached July 22, 2025 Status Conference Order, the court in the Underlying Action has ordered that the deposition of DAL take place on or before January 15, 2026. See Status Conference Order, attached hereto as Exhibit A. L3. Per the July 22, 2025 Status Conference Order, the court in the Underlying Action has also set the deadline for filing the Note of Issue, which signifies the completion of discovery, as March 27, 2026. See Exhibit A. 14. On May 29, 2025, this Court entered an Order Granting the Parties’ Letter Motion for Extension of Time to complete discovery in this action (the “Order’’). See ECF No. 32. 1S. Per the Order, discovery in this declaratory judgment action is to be completed by September 30, 2025, motions are due by October 30, 2025, and a pretrial order is due by October 30, 2025. Jd. 16. “A district court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Loftus v. Signpost, 464 F. Supp. 3d 524 , 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Ve District Courts consider five factors when determining whether to grant a stay: “(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.” Kappel v. Comfort, 914 F. Supp. 1056, 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 18. Here, the Parties jointly represent to this Court that the completion of discovery in the Underlying Action will provide information that is critical to the coverage determination in this declaratory judgment action. More particularly, the DAL deposition, which is scheduled for January 15, 2026, will provide critical information regarding whether the Claimant's alleged injury occurred subsequent to the making of a written contract between JRM and DAL, as required by the relevant additional insured endorsement in the SNIC Policy. 19. The factual dispute in the Underlying Action regarding whether the alleged occurrence was subsequent to the making of a written contract with DAL is critical to the claims for contractual indemnification in the Underlying Action and, therefore, in accordance with settled New York law, that dispute must be adjudicated in discovery in the Underlying Action before that issue can be determined in the instant related insurance coverage dispute. Wesco Insurance Company v. Hellas Glass Works Corp.; 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5195 (N.Y. County 2019), aff'd, 188 A.D.3d 621 (2d Dept. 2020) (duty to indemnify under insurance policies could not be determined because depositions and discovery in the Underlying Action was still ongoing). 20. Moreover, a stay of the proceedings pending the completion of discovery in the Underlying Action is warranted in the interests of judicial economy and the Parties’ interests in the efficient use of their own resources. 21. Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court to stay this action pending completion of discovery in the Underlying Action. 22. Alternatively, the parties jointly request an extension of the discovery deadline in this action until March 27, 2026, and an extension of the pretrial order deadline/summary judgment deadline to April 27, 2026. WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. Alternatively, the Parties respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery deadline in this action until March 27, 2026 and extend the pretrial order deadline/summary judgment deadline to April 27, 2026. Dated: Hartford, CT September 26, 2025 Respectfully submitted, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY COMPANY By its attorney By its attorney /s/ Sherri N. Pavloff /s/ Logan A. Carducci Sherri N. Pavloff Logan A. Carducci Stonberg Hickman & Pavloff, LLP Usery & Associates 505 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2302 P.O. Box 2996 New York, NY 10018 Hartford, CT 06104-2996 Phone: 212-231-2220 Phone: 860-277-3891 MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY By its attorney /s/ Michael P. Kandler Michael P. Kandler Goldberg Segalla LLP 50 Main Street, Suite 425 White Plains, New York 10606 Phone: 914-798-5400 EXHIBIT A UID VQLY AY OY AY UU TOM ATO UU AU SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK “Spaun, Timothy —=~—~OC~CS~CSSSSSSSS Index No, ___194959/2021 Aa . , . Appearance No. go7 _ IAS Part 34 Rockefeller Group et al STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER On July 22 ,20_25 a conference was held in this case. The parties appeared as follows: . Plaintiff(s) i by Waa deems eetraeemers teak aSoai eee an ia ON ice Reem aemmeineeme Defendant(s) pi/s!ran by vl Le Cth TA/ 20 q DAL Ekeinig, py _LitehReld Cavo □ Ner a fit □□ The Court has considered the status of this case [and determined that the Court’s order of April 4. 20825 has not been complied with in bay) EBTS of TPA «+ Z2TPA are—oobetand and clis covery between Third tartyS aad remains oubstanding, Fee clemand for supp. Yespemses to Nohre fo Admikas per~ Email dateck □□□ □ Qoass sees Accordingly, it is ORDERED that EBTof T - ¥ la] 4 pas Cont, FBT of A JRM Congtruction-~ /2/16/a5 EBL of DAL Flea, — - TP QT freq, GBI of 8. b’Hessiv Qs per notice 70 Admit -IPA DAL agnss t produce “PM. EBT of Adria Tndustrial ¢ ZTPA\ = 1/27/2028 lo Taper Dis covery dug. as set gut above. due. in 30 days . Response to Nob for Dise.. Thgp . by WPT served | Aogs7 □□□ in 30 days to +e, SXtent not already provi ded gsiaty fe oe § a 2 eee = a eee _ ty, J erneriaatecond STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER Index No, 194959/2021 Case Spaun, Timothy vs. Rockefeller Group et al - Tarhies reserve, the rrght- tn! IMEs pneluding Vocational - a i ee a a □ ey a a es a a ee, a a a Se te nr Ph a a gg im ae {ae “8 | me ae ess a □ Absent good causeishown, any discovery me not: raised herein will be deemed waived.. □□ □□ All dispositive motions must be filed withinc © days of the note of issue. ‘ . Failure to comply with these directives may result in the imposition of costs or sanctions including dismissal or default judgment. Dates set forth may. not be extended or adjourned. □□□ except with advance approval of the Court. | id “A ie, i a a “NOI: * ( ¥ 3 fz. FLECLE 7 * oF ¢ * “ts . tht y ches ’ re □□□ | SO ORDERED: __ t af é it t 5 tS = ; og WES ' □□□ a spicata □ ASC, □ □ HON. DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR □ “ae am, ES Page2of2 8 an ‘en x“