District Court Rejects Reinsurers’ Request to Change Venue

TIG Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co. et al

(Southern District of New York, June 4, 2009)

 

Philadelphia-based reinsurers submitted a motion to change the venue of a reinsurance dispute from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The reinsurers argued that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) Philadelphia would be a more convenient forum for themselves and for party and non-party witnesses.  Moreover, they argued that the locus of operative facts is in Philadelphia where the reinsurance claims and billings information was reviewed and denied. 

Plaintiff opposed reinsurers’ request on the basis that it failed to demonstrate that a change of venue is necessary and appropriate.  The district court agreed with the plaintiff and denied the motion.  While the court conceded that the most important factor in determining the venue of an action is the convenience of parties and witnesses, it was not convinced that having the matter take place in New York would inconvenient the parties.  The court explained: 

“When asked at oral argument, defendants could not say that the 95-mile jaunt from Philadelphia to New York, accomplishable in an hour-and-a-half train ride, actually would pose an inconvenience for any witness,” the judge explained. “Defendants are sophisticated insurance companies that frequently litigate in this district. Having assumed obligations under reinsurance certificates made in New York, they should expect to be sued here. Furthermore, plaintiff has identified several non-party witnesses in New York who were involved in the negotiation, underwriting, and issuance of several of the certificates. These witnesses would be equally inconvenienced by the trip down to Philadelphia.”

Moreover, the court also denied the argument that the locus of operative facts was in Philadelphia.  The court noted that the scope of the reinsurance dispute is far greater than mere billing concerns and that information lies outside of Philadelphia.  “Defendants contend that ‘this case involves insurance and reinsurance claims and billings, not issues concerning the negotiation, underwriting, or issuance of the contracts.’ This contention is belied by the affirmative defenses they raise in their answer, many of which concern the extent of coverage and the interpretation of the certificates,”

Click here for the TIG.v.Century.Indemnity.Order

by Daniel W. Gerber and Jeffrey L. Kingsley

https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/attorneys/Gerber.html 

https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/attorneys/Kingsley.html