[ad_1]
Insurance broker Marsh USA is seeking up to $15 million in damages from a nine-year legal battle over affirmative action admissions policies between Harvard University and the Student Fair Admissions Association, according to a filing filed last month. It requested that liability for legal costs be withdrawn. .
Harvard’s lawsuit follows previous legal defeats. In 2021, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against Zurich American Insurance Company, claiming that the insurer refused to cover the university’s legal fees “solely because of the late notification” in the case against SFFA. “violation,” and sought damages. Harvard University lost its lawsuit against Zurich.
After Harvard lost to Zurich in district court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the university in August 2023. Less than three months later, Harvard sued Marsh.
Harvard’s lawsuit was originally filed in state court, but was transferred to federal jurisdiction at Marsh’s request in early January.
Marsh requested his dismissal nearly a month after the case was removed. In his request, Marsh argued that Harvard’s claims were “time-limited” and should be rejected.
Under New York state law governing the brokerage agreement signed by both Marsh and Harvard, there is a six-year statute of limitations on claims of breach of contract. After an extension due to the pandemic, the statute of limitations ran until September 15, 2022, more than a year before Harvard sued the insurance broker, Marsh claims.
Harvard University disagreed in a Feb. 9 filing. The university said that while Marsh’s “basic mathematics” was correct, the company misjudged the statute of limitations on its agreement with Harvard. Harvard University argued that the statute of limitations under Massachusetts law expired on February 11, 2024.
“By erroneously applying New York’s statute of limitations rules rather than Massachusetts’s, Marsh (i) miscalculated the date on which Harvard’s claims arose and (ii) calculated the wrong collection days,” Harvard said. the university’s legal team wrote. Feb. 9 court filing.
Harvard University argues in its brief that federal precedent requires the court to use Massachusetts law to determine whether New York or Massachusetts’ jurisdiction governs the case. . Although Marsh University and Harvard University agreed that the contract would be governed by New York state law, the state of Massachusetts is “We consider such provisions as just one element,” Harvard wrote.
Harvard’s lawyers added that the University of Massachusetts has a “material interest” in the university’s claims against Marsh.
A spokesperson for Marsh USA did not respond to a request for comment. Harvard University spokesman Jason A. Newton declined to comment.
The parties are currently awaiting the District Court’s decision on Mr. Marsh’s motion to dismiss. If the claim is denied, the case may continue and result in litigation.
—Staff writer Elyse C. Goncalves can be reached at elyse.goncalves@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @e1ysegoncalves Or in the thread @elyse.goncalves.
—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy can be reached at matan.josephy@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @matanjosephy.
[ad_2]
Source link
