JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 138

ORDER: granting 136 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application granted. Plaintiff shall file its opposition today. Defendants' application to file a short reply (Dkt. 137) is also granted. Any such reply shall be filed by May 13, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 5/06/2022) (ama)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-02882-RA-GWG Document 136 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2 138 May 6, 2022 VIA PACER ONLY Honorable Ronnie Abrams, USDJ Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1506 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Deputy Phone: (212) 805-0162 Chambers Phone: (212) 805-0284 Re: LETTER MOTION Re: Adjournment of Additional Briefing JMG Improvements, Inc. et ano v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company; Armour Risk Management, Inc. Case No. 20-CV-2882 (RA) Honorable Judge Ronnie Abrams: Undersigned is counsel for the plaintiff, JMG Improvements, Inc. (“JMG” or “Plaintiff”). I am writing to request leave to late-file the response brief with respect to the captioned matter. Due completely to my own mental lapse, I have been laboring under the impression that the deadline was May 6, today. Mr. Valverde, counsel for Arch, has already filed his response on May 3, as ordered, and I simply assumed he had filed early. I feel this response is necessary and will assist the Court for several reasons. First, counsel for Arch has made extensive reference to Peleus v. Atlantic. We intend to argue that that case was wrongly decided, but will show that it was not appealed since in that case Peleus actually paid the defense costs, and Atlantic did not need any indemnity costs paid because Atlantic had won summary judgment dismissing the underlying case against it. For this reason Peleus v Atlantic is not persuasive. (See exhibits 1 and 2 hereto.) Peleus v Atlantic was wrongly decided because it ignored well-established New York law that reservations of rights are ineffective to annul the requirements of Ins. L. 3420(d). The Company cannot reserve the right to violate Ins. §3420(d), and to delay a disclaimer, since it does not have that right to begin with. This is well explained by my colleague, esteemed defense counsel Dan Kohane, at his website: https://www.hurwitzfine.com/news/coverage-pointersvolume-xx-no-11-se Further, we are working to obtain a further declaration of Steven R. Payne, counsel for Mr. Salazar, who will attest from his own personal knowledge as a witness to Mr. Salazar’s depositions and all litigation in the underlying that the scaffolding from which Mr. Salazar fell Case 1:20-cv-02882-RA-GWG Document 136 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2 138 Honorable Ronnie Abrams, USDJ Re: JMG v Arch May 6, 2022 Page 2 was not being used for installation of EIFS, rather, it was being dismantled, as stated at pages 8586 of the deposition of Mr. Salazar in the underlying matter. Finally, we intend to present the declaration of our client showing that the existence of a contract remains an issue in dispute in the underlying matter. We would appreciate until midnight tonight to submit the papers. We thank the Court for its indulgence and attention to this matter. Respectfully, James M. Haddad cc: Cliff I. Bass Frank Valverde court17.docx Application granted. Plaintiff shall file its opposition today. Defendants' application to file a short reply (Dkt. 137) is also granted. Any such reply shall be filed by May 13, 2022. SO ORDERED. _____________________ Hon. Ronnie Abrams 05/06/22

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?