Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021
EXHIBIT P
EXHIBIT P
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021
EARIX
June 23, 2021
LUCARELLI Via E-Mail and E-Filing
Hon. Adam Silvera, J.S.C.
New York State Supreme Court
SWEENEY & 60 Centre Street
Room 442
New York, NY 10007
MEISENKOTHEN
Re: Corey Tippin v. 3M Co. et. al., Index. No. 190062/2021
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
n re Bedivere INSurance Company, Index. No. 451540/2021
Plaintiff's Response to Colgate Correspondence June 21
New York
360 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017 Dear Justice Silvera:
p: (212) 986-2233
f: (212) 986-2255
www.elsiaw.com with co-counsel Jessica Dean and Mark I represent
Along my Buha,
connecticut Corey Tippin in the above-captioned matter. On behalf of Mr. Tippin, we
One century Tower write the Court to respond to Colgate-Palmolive Company's
("Plaintiff")
Saunders'
265 Church Street ("Colgate") June 21, 2021 letter regarding Justice June 16, 2021
aven, CT906510 Order.1
Plaintiff respectfully requests that no stay applies until Colgate
Ne(w9
f: (203) 785-1671 provides unequivocal proof of the applicability of the stay to Colgate in this
. specific case (whether by an Order from Justice Saunders or, at minimum,
Califorrna . . . .
3848 Carson Street unequivocal proof to this Court). Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully
ro ance, CA 90503
the Court and Plaintiff to meaningfully evaluate Colgate's request for a stay.
Illinois
156 North Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025 Mr. Tippin was diagnosed with mesothelioma on October 28, 2020.
After four rounds of chemotherapy, invasive surgery and two
Louisiana . .
he continues to suffer from mesothelioma. His
m
1615 Poydras Street 1mmunotherapy treatments,
CaSe iS On e Oh m emews docket. Mr. Tippin was a
e leans, LA 70112
professional makeup artist from the late 1960s to late 1970s. As a young
man, he developed looks for some of the most iconic models of the 1970s.
3 ne Street
St. Louis, MO 63101 He named as defendants the manufacturers of asbestos-containing tale
products that he used in association with such work and in his own personal
Florida
37 N. Orange Avenue use. Mr. Tippin first developed a passion for cosmetic products through his
fascination with, and use of, Colgate's Cashmere Bouquet talc product in
Orlando, FL 32801
1955 to 1958-1959. Mr. Tippin's discovery deposition was scheduled to
'f'e°f °'"'"N"
begin June 18. The night before the deposition, Colgate raised Justice
o
7th Floor Saunders'
Order with Plaintiff's counsel. A few hours before Mr. Tippin's
Washington, DC 20001
scheduled deposition, he was informed the deposition could not go forward.
RhodeIsland
After Colgate requested a stay, Plaintiff asked all other defendants in
Pr i nce RI 906
the case whether they claimed Bedivere has a duty to defend. To date, no
other defendant in the Tippin case has claimed Bedivere's duty to defend.
1 This letter to Colgate's June 21 letter. Plaintiff will soon also separately appeal the
merely serves as a response
Special Master's ruling that the deposition not go forward because of the stay.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021
EARLY
•
Neslemur did not include the Tippin case in its list submitted June 22. The
LUCARELLI only defendant thus preventing Mr. Tippin's deposition is Colgate.
As this Court is aware, Colgate responded to the Court's request for
pmof of insurance by submitting "proof that it is an insured of Bedivere for
SWEENEY & ..."
in camera review At the outset, Plaintiff requests that any information
provided by Colgate to the Court be unsealed. Plaintiff is entitled to such
information. See CPLR 3101(f); Hearld Co. v. Weisenberg, 59 N.Y.2d 378,
MEISENKOTHEN 381 the state's public
policy"
in favor of a
(1983) (reiterating "strong
presumption of openness in all proceedings, including insurance-related
proceedings, unless the party seeking to avoid public scrutiny demonstrates
reasons"
"compelling otherwise).
On June 22, Plaintiff requested that Colgate provide proof of
insurance during the years of Mr. Tippin's use of Colgate's product (1955 to
1958-1959).2
In response, Colgate provided a list of years with policy
numbers for the primary insurance and umbrella insurance. Based on e-mail
correspondence with Colgate, it appears (1) the primary insurance for the
relevant years is exhausted, (2) there is no umbrella policy for the years of
exposure and (3) Colgate contends that the umbrella policy for subsequent
years (after covers the years of Mr. Tippin's exposure (1955 to 1958-
1961)
1959). Plaintiff has not been able to review any documentation on the
above, including Colgate's contention regarding umbrella insurance.
To allow the Court and Plaintiff to meaningfully evaluate whether
the requested more information is needed. This is time-
stay applies,
sensitive given that Mr. Tippin is terminally ill. Plaintiffs respectfully
requests that Mr. Tippin's deposition be permitted to proceed so that it can
be preserved, as a stay can only be predicated on unequivocal proof that in
this specific case Colgate meets the threshold requirement in Judge
Saunders'
Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully requests that, in
addition to whatever information Colgate provided the Court for in camera
review, Colgate be ordered to do the following in an expedited manner
(given the pending nature of Mr. Tippin's deposition):
• Provide documentation of the actual policies the relevant years of
governing
Mr. Tippin's exposure to allow Plaintiff to meaningfully respond;
• State unequivocally, and provide documentation, that
supporting any
is not exhausted (because if the is exhausted - as
governing policy policy
Colgate's failure to respond to Plaintiff's e-mail suggests - Bedivere has no
obligation to defend, the liquidated assets are not impacted and the stay does
not apply);
2
Plaintiff previously requested the same information verbally and via e-mail on June 17 and June 18. Plaintiff
received no concrete information.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021
EARLY
•
• State unequivocally, and provide documentation showing, that Colgate
LUCARELLI submitted a claim to Bedivere for this matter. If the claim was accepted
subject to a reservation of rights letter, that letter should be provided;
• Provide information on, and documentation regarding, (for the
supporting
time period of Mr. Tippin's whether there are multiple
SWEENEY & exposure) insurers,
any agreed defense cost allocation and any agreed indemnity allocation;
• Certify, and provide evidence, that the liabilities (and therefore any
obligation to defend) were not assumed by any other entity, such as Resolute
MEISENKOTHEN
Management, Inc. (which has acquired the actual liabilities under countless
historic insurance policies, including those in asbestos-related litigation).
In requesting this information, Plaintiff does not, contrary to any
suggestion by Colgate, ask this Court to make any rulings in conflict with
Justice Saunders. Plaintiff merely requests this information to determine if
Saunders'
Justice Order applies to Colgate in the Tippin case in the first
Saunders'
place. Justice Order did not make any mention of, or ruling on,
the applicability of the Order to Colgate. The Order merely stated that a stay
may apply if there is an action against "insureds of Bedivere or in which
Bedivere is obligated to defend an insured or provide a defense to a party
policy."
pursuant to an insurance Colgate has an affirmative obligation to
prove this condition is met for the Order to apply. At the very least, given
the exigency of the situation with Mr. Tippin's deposition pending, Plaintiff
respectfully requests this information be provided immediately.
Very Truly Yours,
THE EARLY LAW FIRM, LLC
S/Brian Early
Brian Early, Esq.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021 EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT P FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021 EARIX June 23, 2021 LUCARELLI Via E-Mail and E-Filing Hon. Adam Silvera, J.S.C. New York State Supreme Court SWEENEY & 60 Centre Street Room 442 New York, NY 10007 MEISENKOTHEN Re: Corey Tippin v. 3M Co. et. al., Index. No. 190062/2021 ATTORNEYS AT LAW n re Bedivere INSurance Company, Index. No. 451540/2021 Plaintiff's Response to Colgate Correspondence June 21 New York 360 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Justice Silvera: p: (212) 986-2233 f: (212) 986-2255 www.elsiaw.com with co-counsel Jessica Dean and Mark I represent Along my Buha, connecticut Corey Tippin in the above-captioned matter. On behalf of Mr. Tippin, we One century Tower write the Court to respond to Colgate-Palmolive Company's ("Plaintiff") Saunders' 265 Church Street ("Colgate") June 21, 2021 letter regarding Justice June 16, 2021 aven, CT906510 Order.1 Plaintiff respectfully requests that no stay applies until Colgate Ne(w9 f: (203) 785-1671 provides unequivocal proof of the applicability of the stay to Colgate in this . specific case (whether by an Order from Justice Saunders or, at minimum, Califorrna . . . . 3848 Carson Street unequivocal proof to this Court). Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully ro ance, CA 90503 the Court and Plaintiff to meaningfully evaluate Colgate's request for a stay. Illinois 156 North Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Mr. Tippin was diagnosed with mesothelioma on October 28, 2020. After four rounds of chemotherapy, invasive surgery and two Louisiana . . he continues to suffer from mesothelioma. His m 1615 Poydras Street 1mmunotherapy treatments, CaSe iS On e Oh m emews docket. Mr. Tippin was a e leans, LA 70112 professional makeup artist from the late 1960s to late 1970s. As a young man, he developed looks for some of the most iconic models of the 1970s. 3 ne Street St. Louis, MO 63101 He named as defendants the manufacturers of asbestos-containing tale products that he used in association with such work and in his own personal Florida 37 N. Orange Avenue use. Mr. Tippin first developed a passion for cosmetic products through his fascination with, and use of, Colgate's Cashmere Bouquet talc product in Orlando, FL 32801 1955 to 1958-1959. Mr. Tippin's discovery deposition was scheduled to 'f'e°f °'"'"N" begin June 18. The night before the deposition, Colgate raised Justice o 7th Floor Saunders' Order with Plaintiff's counsel. A few hours before Mr. Tippin's Washington, DC 20001 scheduled deposition, he was informed the deposition could not go forward. RhodeIsland After Colgate requested a stay, Plaintiff asked all other defendants in Pr i nce RI 906 the case whether they claimed Bedivere has a duty to defend. To date, no other defendant in the Tippin case has claimed Bedivere's duty to defend. 1 This letter to Colgate's June 21 letter. Plaintiff will soon also separately appeal the merely serves as a response Special Master's ruling that the deposition not go forward because of the stay. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021 EARLY • Neslemur did not include the Tippin case in its list submitted June 22. The LUCARELLI only defendant thus preventing Mr. Tippin's deposition is Colgate. As this Court is aware, Colgate responded to the Court's request for pmof of insurance by submitting "proof that it is an insured of Bedivere for SWEENEY & ..." in camera review At the outset, Plaintiff requests that any information provided by Colgate to the Court be unsealed. Plaintiff is entitled to such information. See CPLR 3101(f); Hearld Co. v. Weisenberg, 59 N.Y.2d 378, MEISENKOTHEN 381 the state's public policy" in favor of a (1983) (reiterating "strong presumption of openness in all proceedings, including insurance-related proceedings, unless the party seeking to avoid public scrutiny demonstrates reasons" "compelling otherwise). On June 22, Plaintiff requested that Colgate provide proof of insurance during the years of Mr. Tippin's use of Colgate's product (1955 to 1958-1959).2 In response, Colgate provided a list of years with policy numbers for the primary insurance and umbrella insurance. Based on e-mail correspondence with Colgate, it appears (1) the primary insurance for the relevant years is exhausted, (2) there is no umbrella policy for the years of exposure and (3) Colgate contends that the umbrella policy for subsequent years (after covers the years of Mr. Tippin's exposure (1955 to 1958- 1961) 1959). Plaintiff has not been able to review any documentation on the above, including Colgate's contention regarding umbrella insurance. To allow the Court and Plaintiff to meaningfully evaluate whether the requested more information is needed. This is time- stay applies, sensitive given that Mr. Tippin is terminally ill. Plaintiffs respectfully requests that Mr. Tippin's deposition be permitted to proceed so that it can be preserved, as a stay can only be predicated on unequivocal proof that in this specific case Colgate meets the threshold requirement in Judge Saunders' Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully requests that, in addition to whatever information Colgate provided the Court for in camera review, Colgate be ordered to do the following in an expedited manner (given the pending nature of Mr. Tippin's deposition): • Provide documentation of the actual policies the relevant years of governing Mr. Tippin's exposure to allow Plaintiff to meaningfully respond; • State unequivocally, and provide documentation, that supporting any is not exhausted (because if the is exhausted - as governing policy policy Colgate's failure to respond to Plaintiff's e-mail suggests - Bedivere has no obligation to defend, the liquidated assets are not impacted and the stay does not apply); 2 Plaintiff previously requested the same information verbally and via e-mail on June 17 and June 18. Plaintiff received no concrete information. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2021 12:02 PM INDEX NO. 451540/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2021 EARLY • • State unequivocally, and provide documentation showing, that Colgate LUCARELLI submitted a claim to Bedivere for this matter. If the claim was accepted subject to a reservation of rights letter, that letter should be provided; • Provide information on, and documentation regarding, (for the supporting time period of Mr. Tippin's whether there are multiple SWEENEY & exposure) insurers, any agreed defense cost allocation and any agreed indemnity allocation; • Certify, and provide evidence, that the liabilities (and therefore any obligation to defend) were not assumed by any other entity, such as Resolute MEISENKOTHEN Management, Inc. (which has acquired the actual liabilities under countless historic insurance policies, including those in asbestos-related litigation). In requesting this information, Plaintiff does not, contrary to any suggestion by Colgate, ask this Court to make any rulings in conflict with Justice Saunders. Plaintiff merely requests this information to determine if Saunders' Justice Order applies to Colgate in the Tippin case in the first Saunders' place. Justice Order did not make any mention of, or ruling on, the applicability of the Order to Colgate. The Order merely stated that a stay may apply if there is an action against "insureds of Bedivere or in which Bedivere is obligated to defend an insured or provide a defense to a party policy." pursuant to an insurance Colgate has an affirmative obligation to prove this condition is met for the Order to apply. At the very least, given the exigency of the situation with Mr. Tippin's deposition pending, Plaintiff respectfully requests this information be provided immediately. Very Truly Yours, THE EARLY LAW FIRM, LLC S/Brian Early Brian Early, Esq.