Letter,Correspondence: E.E. Cruz & Company, Inc. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                March 8, 2022


                  VIA ECF Filing
                  The Honorable Nancy M. Bannon
                  Supreme Court of the State of New York
                  County of New York
                  60 Centre Street
                  New York, New York 10007

                                                      RE: E.E. Cruz & Company, Inc. v. Starr Surplus Lines
                                                            Insurance Co., Index No.: 652321-2020

                  Dear Judge Bannon,

                           We represent Plaintiff, EE Cruz & Company, Inc. (“Cruz”), in the above-referenced
                  matter. Please allow this letter, submitted jointly with counsel for defendant, Starr Surplus
                  Lines Ins. Co. (“Starr”) to provide an update on the status of fact discovery in advance of
                  the March 24, 2022 Status Conference.

                           This   matter   involves    a  complex     builders’   risk  insurance     coverage     dispute    arising
                  out of a loss sustained in connection with the renovation and rehabilitation of three bridges
                  in Westchester,       New York.       During    construction, one       of the  drilled  shafts on     the  project
                  became infiltrated with water and soot, rendering it unsuitable for use.                     Cruz was required
                  to re-design and build the drilled shaft, incurring substantial costs for the direct repair of
                  the drilled shafts and delay in construction.             When Starr failed to compensate Cruz for its
                  losses    pursuant     to  the  builders’    risk  policy   issued    by   it,this  litigation   ensued.      In  its
                  Complaint,     Cruz    seeks    damages      for  breach    of  the  insurance     policy.    In  addition   to  the
                  standard     breach     of  contract    claims,    Cruz   has    stated   cognizable      claims    for  bad   faith
                  (breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and violations of General
                  Business Law §349.           These claims, in part, arise out of Starr’s issuance of an insurance
                  policy than     the  policy that was negotiated          by the   parties.    Accordingly, fact discovery in
                  this case is multi-faceted and encompasses: (1) Cruz’s direct damages; (2) Cruz’s impact
                  damages; and (3) the negotiation and underwriting of the subject Policy.

                           Over    the  last several    weeks,     the  parties   have   spent    a significant    amount     of time
                  and effort in    a good    faith attempt to      resolve this dispute – and have made considerable
                  progress.     In an effort to     continue negotiations and          with a goal of resolution, the parties
                  adjourned      certain    depositions,       as   continued      expenditure       of  litigation   costs    would
                  necessarily shift each party’s expectations regarding settlement.

                           Unfortunately,       settlement      discussions       have     not   progressed        as   quickly     as
                  anticipated,    and    the  parties   are  now    scheduling     depositions     –  in  the  event   a  resolution
                  cannot be reached - in an effort to satisfy the Court’s existing fact discovery deadline.                         As

                                              233 Mount Airy Road, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 • 973.446.7300
                                                                    www.sdvlaw.com
                                                  Connecticut  •  Florida  •  California •  New Jersey
                  of  now,   the   key   depositions     are   scheduled      to  take   place   in  advance      of the   deadline.
                  However,      the  parties   are   stillin  the  process    or  rescheduling      the   remaining     depositions
                  (potentially up to eleven depositions) and they are unlikely to be completed in advance of
                  the March 18, 2022 fact discovery deadline.

                           We    are  writing   to advise    the  Court    that  we   will be   requesting     an  additional    sixty
                  (60)   days   to  complete     fact   discovery.      In addition,    we   request    an   adjournment       of  the
                  Compliance Conference to permit the parties additional time to continue to work toward
                  a resolution of this matter.

                           Thank you for your time and attention to this correspondence.


                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,



                                                                                          Stacy M. Manobianca
                                                                                          SManobianca@sdvlaw.com
                                                                                          (203) 287-2100

                  cc: Charles J. Rocco, Esq.
                       Ashley C. Vicere, Esq.