• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Discovery / COURT REFUSES TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF CEDENT’S DOCUMENTS TO REINSURER WHEN EXTENT OF CEDENT’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IS AT CENTER OF THE LITIGATION

COURT REFUSES TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF CEDENT’S DOCUMENTS TO REINSURER WHEN EXTENT OF CEDENT’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IS AT CENTER OF THE LITIGATION

February 8, 2017 by Rob DiUbaldo

A court has denied a motion to reconsider its decision denying a reinsurer’s (Century Indemnity Co.) motion to compel an insurer (Travelers Casualty and Surety Company) to produce certain documents in a case in which Travelers is specifically seeking a declaratory judgment that Century’s obligation to pay claims is not preconditioned on its access to Travelers’ documents.

Travelers filed the lawsuit alleging that Century had breached two reinsurance contracts, seeking reimbursement for underlying asbestos-related claims paid by Travelers, and requesting declarations that Travelers is not obligated to provide Century with privileged documents and that Century’s obligation to pay under the contracts is not preconditioned on Traveler’s providing documents to Century. After Travelers refused to produce certain documents requested in discovery, Century moved for leave to file a motion to compel production. The court denied the motion for two reasons. First, it found that the motion was untimely, as it was not filed until four months after Travelers completed its production. Second, the court found “that the documents that Century seeks to obtain by compelling production are effectively what the underlying dispute in this case is about”. On reconsideration, the court found that Century had provided no basis sufficient for the court to alter its earlier decision. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Century Indemnity Co., 3:16-cv-170 (JCH) (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Discovery

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.