Justin Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios have filed a motion to dismiss or stay Harco National Insurance Company’s July lawsuit that Harco filed in New York in an attempt to get a court ruling stating their policies don’t cover the sexual harassment claims made by Blake Lively
Baldoni’s team submitted the motion in New York’s Southern District Court on Oct. 24, and in it, they accuse Harco of “forum shopping” in an attempt to choose a court or jurisdiction — in this case New York — that could potentially give them a legal advantage in its suit against Baldoni. The “It Ends With Us” director is suing several insurance companies, one being Harco, to cover his legal fees in his ongoing battle with Lively.
The legal document, obtained by TheWrap, points out that Harco filed its insurance lawsuit in New York federal court despite Wayfarer Studios, and the film “It Ends With Us,” being based in California where the Lively v. Wayfarer lawsuit is being handled in a California state court.
Harco was Baldoni’s Wayfarer’s insurer for the “It Ends With Us” film. Harco sued Baldoni and Wayfarer back in July and asked a court to declare that it is not responsible for covering legal expenses for Wayfarer or its executives. The company argues its $2 million policy does not apply because the alleged misconduct occurred before Wayfarer was insured. Harco also claims that it was never notified of Lively’s complaints during the film’s production.
Baldoni’s lawyers argue that Harco chose New York not because it was the more logical move legally but because it believed New York courts would lean more in favor of insurance companies. It adds that Harco won’t be prejudiced by a move of dismissal as Harco is able to raise its claims and defenses in the California case.
“Had Harco not filed this lawsuit in New York, it could, and would have been a defendant in the California lawsuit,” the 17-page document against Harco reads.
“There is no question that California is an available forum and that a California court is well suited to address issues under policies sold and delivered in California to California insureds,” the document continued. “This action should be dismissed or stayed in favor of the available California forum (and the California lawsuit) under the abstention doctrines stated in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America and reaffirmed by Wilton v. Seven Falls. Harco is one of four insurers that issued policies to the Insureds promising coverage for, among other things, claims of defamation and that the Insureds committed ‘Wrongful Acts’ — in other words, for the precise kinds of claims alleged in the Lively lawsuit.”
In conclusion, Baldoni’s team is requesting that the court grant their motion to dismiss or stay this action while the California lawsuit continues.
