Steadfast Insurance Company v. Shambaugh & Son, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, No. 3:22-cv-1306 (SRU) v. SHAMBAUGH & SON, L.P., Defendant. ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The central dispute in this case is whether an insurance policy covers costs incurred in responding to a subpoena. The plaintiff, Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), argues that the insurance policy does not cover those expenses, and the defendant, Shambaugh & Son, L.P. (“Shambaugh”), contends that it does. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 64; Doc. No.…