Opinion
03 Civ. 0332 (AKH).
January 24, 2005
ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY ISSUE
The parties — the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich") ask me to rule whether or not witness Doreen Miller of Zurich must answer questions asked of her by the Port Authority relating to her interpretation and understanding of provisions in Zurich's umbrella policy bearing on the issue of additional insurance coverage for the Port Authority. I require the following in order to rule:
1. The precise clauses in issue;
2. A clear statement of Zurich's position whether or not, and to what extent, the Port Authority is an "Additional Insured;"
3. The positions taken by Zurich as to this issue, as expressed to the Port Authority.
An insurance agreement, like all agreements, is to be interpreted according to its objective intent, that is, according to the reasonable understanding of the promissee from representations made to it by the promissor. Morgan Stanley Group Inc. v. New Eng. Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 270, 275-76 (2d Cir. 2000). The parties may inquire as to customary usages in the insurance industry. Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 906 (2d Cir. 1997). I fail to understand how the witness' current interpretation of the clause in issue can be relevant. However, if Zurich has not stated a clear position as to the Port Authority's status under its policy, I would be inclined to allow the question to the witness.
The parties are invited to submit short briefs on this issue: the Port Authority, within five business days from the date of this ruling; Zurich, within three days thereafter.
SO ORDERED.