Filing Summary

This court held that the NRA could not effectuate service of a subpoena on third party Lloyds of London through defendant Department of Financial Services.  The legal reasoning behind the decision is based on the interpretation of New York State Insurance Law, and contains little factual discussion and/or analysis of the NRA’s problematic Carry Guard product.

Key Points

• As the decision explains at page 3, the NRA had argued that the subpoenas were “critical” to its case as it “believes that Lloyd’s-related persons were recipients of the ‘backroom exhortations’ identified in the Amended Complaint.”  Similarly, it contends that the Lloyd’s entities “are in possession, custody, and control of a robust body of nonpublic information relevant to this case, including documents and testimony that would reflect interactions between Lloyd’s and DFS, as well as Lloyd’s internal decision making in response to DFS pressure.”
• The court acknowledges that order DFS to effectuate service of Lloyd’s would be “more expedient”, but that such an order would not be consistent with statuatory language.  Instead, the Court notes that the NRA “may appropriately resort to the Hague Convention for proper service upon the Lloyd’s entities.” (p.13)