Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Index No.: 652336/2018
Plaintiff, ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY'S
-against-
RESPONSES TO FIRST
SPECIALTY INSURANCE
FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, CORPORATION'S SECOND
WESTERN BEEF RETAIL, INC. and WESTERN
NOTICE TO ADMIT
BEEF PROPERTIES, INC.
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"), by and through its attorneys,
Coughlin Duffy LLP, hereby responds to Defendant First Specialty Insurance Corporation's
("FSIC") Second Notice to Admit dated November 21, 2018 as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Zurich makes the following General Objections to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit. The
General Objections set forth below apply to each of the individual Admission Requests, even if
not specifically referenced in Zurich's individual responses. Should any of the following
General Objections not be cited in Zurich's individual responses, Zurich does not waive the right
to assert any of the General Objections as set forth below:
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information that
is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek to obtain
protected documents or information subject to the attorney-client privilege; work product
doctrine; joint or common defense privilege; documents containing the impressions, conclusions,
legal research or theories of Zurich or its attorneys; or materials prepared in anticipation of
1546360
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
litigation. Zurich asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections
applicable to the Admission Requests to the fullest extent provided by law.
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they are overbroad,
unduly burdensome, or oppressive.
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they impose obligations
beyond those required or allowed by Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules or any other
applicable law or rule.
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information
and/or documents not in Zurich's possession, custody or control.
Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information
and/or documents without limiting the request to a relevant and/or reasonable time period.
Zurich reserves the right to amend, modify or supplement the responses if and when it
learns of new information, up to and including the time of trial.
ZURICH RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
36. Admit that the combined amount spent by WESTERN BEEF and ZURICH on
defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT did not exceed $450,000.
Response: Zurich can neither admit nor deny the statements made in Request
No. 36 because it has not been provided with complete evidence of the amount spent by
Western Beef on the defense of the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
37. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not aware of any facts or in
possession of any DOCUMENT REFLECTING that the combined amount spent by WESTERN
BEEF and ZURICH on defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT exceeded
$450,000.
Response: Admit.
38. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was aware of facts and in possession
of DOCUMENT REFLECTING that the combiñcd amount spent by WESTERN BEEF and
ZURICH on defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT exceeded $450,000.
1546360 2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
Response: Prior to filing the lawsuit, Zurich admits that it was not in possession
of information or DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount spent by WESTERN BEEF on its
and Serota's combined defense.
39. Admit that FSIC had no duty to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
40. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02
was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
41. Admit that FSIC had no duty to appoint defense counsel for SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA
2000002 02 was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
1546360 3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
42. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to appoint defense counsel for
SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No.
IRA 2000002 02 was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request beeâüse it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
43. Admit that FSIC had no duty to indemnify SEROTA in the UNDERLY1NG
LAWSUIT unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request beeâüse it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
44. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to indemnify SEROTA in the
UNDERLYlNG LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02
was paid.
Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR §
3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambignsus. Without
waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an
1546360 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense
Included),"
Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions
contained within that endorsement.
45. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that
FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague,
misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents
that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend
SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid
objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS
REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
46. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any
DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
Response: Admit.
47. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that
FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to jointly defend WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague,
misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents
that may or may not demoñstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend
SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid
objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS
REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
1546360 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
48. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any
DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to jointly defend
WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
ResRonsel Admit.
49. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that
FSIC appointed ABRAMS to defend WESTERNBEEF in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague,
misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents
that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend
SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid
objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS
REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
50. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any
DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ABRAMS to defend WESTERN BEEF in the
UNDERLYlNG LAWSUIT.
Responsel Admit.
51. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that
FSIC decided to split the defense of WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLYING
LAWSUIT.
Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague,
misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents
that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend
SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid
objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS
1546360 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT.
52. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any
DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC decided to split the defense of WESTERN BEEF and
SEROTA in the UNDERLY1NG LAWSUIT.
Response: Admit.
Dated: New York, New York
January 9, 2019
COUGHLIN DUFFY LL
By:
Gabriel ÈŸ)arwick, Esq.
Lindsey LaFond, Esq.
Wall Street Plaza
28th
88 Pine Street, FlOOr
New York, New York 10005
(212) 483-0105
Attorneys for Plaintiff
To: Anthony Genovesi, Esq.
Justin T. Kelton, Esq.
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman,
Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP
1 Metro Tech Center, Suite 1701
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 215-5300
Attorneys for Defendants
Western Beef Retail, Inc. and Western Beef Properties, Inc.
Gregg D. Weinstock, Esq.
Vigorito, Barker, Patterson, Nichols & Porter, LLP
300 Garden City Plaza, Suite 308
Garden City, NY 11530
(516)
282-3355
Adam H. Fleischer, Esq.
Michael Passman, Esq.
BatesCarey LLP
191 N. Wacker, Suite 2400
1546360 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 762-3100
Attorneys for Defendant
First Specialty Insurance Corporation
1546360 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019
VERIFICATION
STATE OFN o
) ss:
COUNTY OF f) (( G )
I, Aaron Gibson, declare and verify under penalty of perjury that I am an employee of
Zurich North America ("Zurich"), and am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of
Zurich. I have read the foregoing Responses to First Specialty
Insurance Corporation's Second
Requests to Admit and know the contents thereof. The responses were prepared with the
assistance of counsel and are based on the records, letters, documents, etc., maintained in the
files of Zurich.
Subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, the responses are true, correct, and
complete to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief.
Dated: , 2019
Sworn to before me on
the
day of C#-n c , 2019
Susan M Drew
Notary Public
New Jersey
My Commission Expires 8-7-2022
No.50065531
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Index No.: 652336/2018 Plaintiff, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S -against- RESPONSES TO FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, CORPORATION'S SECOND WESTERN BEEF RETAIL, INC. and WESTERN NOTICE TO ADMIT BEEF PROPERTIES, INC. Defendants. Plaintiff, Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"), by and through its attorneys, Coughlin Duffy LLP, hereby responds to Defendant First Specialty Insurance Corporation's ("FSIC") Second Notice to Admit dated November 21, 2018 as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Zurich makes the following General Objections to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit. The General Objections set forth below apply to each of the individual Admission Requests, even if not specifically referenced in Zurich's individual responses. Should any of the following General Objections not be cited in Zurich's individual responses, Zurich does not waive the right to assert any of the General Objections as set forth below: Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek to obtain protected documents or information subject to the attorney-client privilege; work product doctrine; joint or common defense privilege; documents containing the impressions, conclusions, legal research or theories of Zurich or its attorneys; or materials prepared in anticipation of 1546360 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 litigation. Zurich asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the Admission Requests to the fullest extent provided by law. Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive. Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they impose obligations beyond those required or allowed by Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules or any other applicable law or rule. Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information and/or documents not in Zurich's possession, custody or control. Zurich objects to FSIC's Second Notice to Admit to the extent they seek information and/or documents without limiting the request to a relevant and/or reasonable time period. Zurich reserves the right to amend, modify or supplement the responses if and when it learns of new information, up to and including the time of trial. ZURICH RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 36. Admit that the combined amount spent by WESTERN BEEF and ZURICH on defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT did not exceed $450,000. Response: Zurich can neither admit nor deny the statements made in Request No. 36 because it has not been provided with complete evidence of the amount spent by Western Beef on the defense of the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. 37. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not aware of any facts or in possession of any DOCUMENT REFLECTING that the combined amount spent by WESTERN BEEF and ZURICH on defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT exceeded $450,000. Response: Admit. 38. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was aware of facts and in possession of DOCUMENT REFLECTING that the combiñcd amount spent by WESTERN BEEF and ZURICH on defense and indemnity in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT exceeded $450,000. 1546360 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 Response: Prior to filing the lawsuit, Zurich admits that it was not in possession of information or DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount spent by WESTERN BEEF on its and Serota's combined defense. 39. Admit that FSIC had no duty to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 40. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 41. Admit that FSIC had no duty to appoint defense counsel for SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an 1546360 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 42. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to appoint defense counsel for SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request beeâüse it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 43. Admit that FSIC had no duty to indemnify SEROTA in the UNDERLY1NG LAWSUIT unless and until the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request beeâüse it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 44. Admit that ZURICH contends that FSIC had a duty to indemnify SEROTA in the UNDERLYlNG LAWSUIT before the self-insured retention on FSIC Policy No. IRA 2000002 02 was paid. Response: Zurich objects to this Request because it is improper under CPLR § 3123. Zurich further objects to this Request as it is vague and ambignsus. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Zurich admits that the FSIC Policy contains an 1546360 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 endorsement entitled "Self-Insured Retention Endorsement (TPA-Administered - Defense Included)," Costs and Zurich refers to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions contained within that endorsement. 45. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague, misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. 46. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Response: Admit. 47. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to jointly defend WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague, misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents that may or may not demoñstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. 1546360 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 48. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to jointly defend WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. ResRonsel Admit. 49. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ABRAMS to defend WESTERNBEEF in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague, misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. 50. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ABRAMS to defend WESTERN BEEF in the UNDERLYlNG LAWSUIT. Responsel Admit. 51. Admit that ZURICH is not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC decided to split the defense of WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Response: Zurich objects to this Notice to Admit has confusing, vague, misleading, and premature because FSIC has withheld as privileged certain documents that may or may not demonstrate its role in appointing ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. Subject to and without waiving the aforesaid objections, Zurich admits that it is not currently in possession of any DOCUMENTS 1546360 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 REFLECTING that FSIC appointed ROBERT BROWN to defend SEROTA in the UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. 52. Admit that, prior to filing this lawsuit, ZURICH was not in possession of any DOCUMENTS REFLECTING that FSIC decided to split the defense of WESTERN BEEF and SEROTA in the UNDERLY1NG LAWSUIT. Response: Admit. Dated: New York, New York January 9, 2019 COUGHLIN DUFFY LL By: Gabriel ÈŸ)arwick, Esq. Lindsey LaFond, Esq. Wall Street Plaza 28th 88 Pine Street, FlOOr New York, New York 10005 (212) 483-0105 Attorneys for Plaintiff To: Anthony Genovesi, Esq. Justin T. Kelton, Esq. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP 1 Metro Tech Center, Suite 1701 Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 215-5300 Attorneys for Defendants Western Beef Retail, Inc. and Western Beef Properties, Inc. Gregg D. Weinstock, Esq. Vigorito, Barker, Patterson, Nichols & Porter, LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, Suite 308 Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 282-3355 Adam H. Fleischer, Esq. Michael Passman, Esq. BatesCarey LLP 191 N. Wacker, Suite 2400 1546360 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 762-3100 Attorneys for Defendant First Specialty Insurance Corporation 1546360 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/22/2019 03:03 PM INDEX NO. 652336/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2019 VERIFICATION STATE OFN o ) ss: COUNTY OF f) (( G ) I, Aaron Gibson, declare and verify under penalty of perjury that I am an employee of Zurich North America ("Zurich"), and am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Zurich. I have read the foregoing Responses to First Specialty Insurance Corporation's Second Requests to Admit and know the contents thereof. The responses were prepared with the assistance of counsel and are based on the records, letters, documents, etc., maintained in the files of Zurich. Subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, the responses are true, correct, and complete to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. Dated: , 2019 Sworn to before me on the day of C#-n c , 2019 Susan M Drew Notary Public New Jersey My Commission Expires 8-7-2022 No.50065531