PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE
March 28, 2026
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Jeffrey Park, Senior Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
TO: Douglas Carmichael, Responsible Partner Francesca Morano, Billing Partner
RE: discovery Plan — Quorum Casualty & Surety Company v. Pinnacle Atlantic Reinsurance Ltd.; Treaty No. PA-QCS-2019-EXL-0044; C&H Matter No. 1025-00005
CLASSIFICATION: Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product Doctrine
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline a comprehensive discovery strategy for the pre-suit reinsurance recoverable dispute between our client, Quorum Casualty & Surety Company ("QC&S"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Quorum Insurance Holdings, Inc. ("QIH"), as cedent, and Pinnacle Atlantic Reinsurance Ltd. ("Pinnacle Atlantic"), as reinsurer, concerning $78,400,000 in disputed reinsurance recoverables arising under Treaty No. PA-QCS-2019-EXL-0044 (the "Treaty"), an aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance agreement covering casualty lines of business.
On February 14, 2026, Pinnacle Atlantic's counsel, Hargrove, Fitch & Calloway LLP ("HFC"), transmitted a formal pre-suit demand letter to Calderwood & Harkness asserting a total demand of $91,000,000, comprised of $78,400,000 in principal — representing the return of all billings paid by Pinnacle Atlantic under the Treaty during the relevant treaty years — plus $12,600,000 in accrued interest (calculated at approximately 8% per annum over an average outstanding period of approximately 24 months). The demand letter was preceded by a reservation-of-rights letter from Pinnacle Atlantic dated December 12, 2025, and a non-renewal notice dated October 1, 2025, effectively terminating the Treaty relationship prospectively.
The treaty years at issue are TY 2022 (July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023) and TY 2023 (July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024). Pinnacle Atlantic paid a total of $78,400,000 across seven billing installments transmitted between October 15, 2022 and March 29, 2024, all without contemporaneous objection. Pinnacle Atlantic now seeks to recover the entirety of those payments — and interest — on four grounds.
The four dispute grounds raised by Pinnacle Atlantic in the February 14, 2026 demand letter are as follows:
(1) Late Notice (Article 7): Pinnacle Atlantic contends that QC&S failed to provide timely notice of the Meridian Docks mass tort claims cluster (31 commercial general liability claims under Policy No. CGL-2020-09844), asserting a 14-month, 7-day gap between QC&S's first reserving of the claims on March 15, 2021 and the transmittal of notice to Pinnacle Atlantic via Broadreach Intermediaries Inc. ("Broadreach") on May 22, 2022.
(2) IBNR Misallocation (Article 5): Pinnacle Atlantic asserts that QC&S misallocated $22,300,000 in Incurred But Not Reported ("IBNR") reserve strengthening to TY 2022 (accident-year 2022 development), when — in Pinnacle Atlantic's view — that reserve strengthening should properly be allocated to TY 2021 (accident-year 2021 exposures), with the effect that TY 2021 aggregate net incurred losses would remain at $104,600,000, below the $120,000,000 Treaty retention, and therefore not ceded.
(3) Follow-the-Fortunes Challenge (Article 11): Pinnacle Atlantic challenges the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster settlement ($34,500,000 total: Claim A — $14,200,000; Claim B — $12,800,000; Claim C — $7,500,000; settled September 8, 2023 under Policy No. PL-2021-15327), alleging that the settlement lacked meaningful litigation exposure analysis and was effected at inflated amounts, and therefore does not qualify for follow-the-fortunes deference under Article 11 of the Treaty.
(4) Ceded Earned Premium Underreporting (Article 3): Pinnacle Atlantic asserts that QC&S underreported TY 2022 ceded earned premium by $6,800,000 — reporting $38,400,000 rather than what Pinnacle Atlantic calculates should have been $45,200,000 — based on a dispute over the proper treatment of run-off portfolio transfer premiums under the Treaty's slide-scale adjustment mechanism and Article 3.4 exclusion.
This memorandum addresses discovery under both procedural tracks currently in play:
(a) ARIAS-U.S. Arbitration pursuant to Treaty Article 22, which mandates arbitration of disputes arising under or in connection with the Treaty before a three-member panel sitting in New York, New York, under ARIAS-U.S. Rules. We have filed a demand for arbitration, and Pinnacle Atlantic — through HFC — has challenged the applicability of the arbitration clause to the specific claims raised.
(b) Litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division, should Pinnacle Atlantic successfully resist our motion to compel arbitration or elect to file suit in that forum. The litigation track serves as a parallel planning contingency.
The remainder of this memorandum is organized as follows: Section II addresses the procedural framework for discovery under each track; Section III details the categories of documents to be requested from Pinnacle Atlantic and collected from QC&S/QIH; Section IV sets forth proposed interrogatory topics; Section V identifies deposition targets and preparation priorities; Section VI addresses third-party discovery; Section VII outlines the expert discovery strategy; Section VIII provides estimated discovery costs and staffing allocations; Section IX presents a discovery timeline for both procedural tracks; Section X discusses key strategic considerations that should inform the execution of the discovery plan; Section XI identifies immediate next steps; and Section XII lists appendices.
II. Procedural Framework for discovery
A. Arbitration-Track discovery (Treaty Article 22 / ARIAS-U.S. Rules)
Treaty Article 22 — titled "Arbitration" — mandates that "any dispute arising out of, or in connection with, this Treaty, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration" before a three-member arbitration panel sitting in New York, New York. The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules of ARIAS-U.S. ("ARIAS-U.S. Rules"), with each party appointing one arbitrator and the two party-appointed arbitrators selecting the third, who serves as the umpire. All three arbitrators are required to be current or former officers of insurance or reinsurance companies.
Under ARIAS-U.S. Rules, the arbitration panel has broad discretion over the scope and conduct of pre-hearing discovery. That discretion typically results in discovery that is more focused and more limited than what would be available in full-blown civil litigation. The key characteristics of arbitration-track discovery are as follows:
Document Exchange. Panels typically order the exchange of relevant, non-privileged documents in the parties' possession, custody, or control. The scope of document exchange is generally governed by a relevance standard similar to — but often narrower than — the standard applicable in litigation. Parties are expected to produce documents that are directly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue, without the expansive "material and necessary" standard found in CPLR § 3101(a). Panels may limit the temporal scope of production, the number of document custodians subject to search, and the categories of documents to be produced. Formal subpoena power over third parties is not vested in the arbitration panel itself; third-party discovery requires either voluntary cooperation or application to a court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of subpoenas.
Depositions. Depositions are not automatically available in ARIAS arbitration. The panel must specifically authorize the taking of depositions, and panels may limit the number and scope of depositions permitted. In practice, panels in complex reinsurance arbitrations routinely authorize depositions of key fact witnesses — particularly adverse party witnesses and critical third-party witnesses — but may decline to authorize depositions of lower-priority or cumulative witnesses. It is important to present compelling justifications for each proposed deposition when seeking panel authorization.
Interrogatories. Interrogatories are generally disfavored in ARIAS arbitration proceedings, as panels tend to prefer document-centric discovery supplemented by targeted depositions. However, the panel retains discretion to permit targeted written questions on specific topics, and we should be prepared to present proposed interrogatories to the panel for consideration, particularly on topics where written responses are more efficient than deposition testimony (e.g., identification of persons with knowledge, calculation methodologies, factual bases for specific contentions).
Third-Party discovery. As noted above, the arbitration panel lacks inherent subpoena power over non-parties. To compel third-party discovery, we must apply to a court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant statutory provisions are 9 U.S.C. § 7 (federal) and NY CPLR § 7505 (state). Under CPLR § 7505, the Supreme Court may issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents in connection with an arbitration proceeding. The strategic implications of third-party discovery under the arbitration track are discussed in detail in Section VI below.
Expert discovery. Expert discovery in ARIAS arbitration typically involves the exchange of expert reports — often in a sequential format (initial report followed by rebuttal) — and potential panel examination of experts at the hearing itself. The panel may direct the parties to submit expert reports on a specific schedule and may permit cross-examination of experts by opposing counsel during the hearing. Formal expert depositions, as practiced in litigation, are less common in arbitration but may be authorized by the panel in complex cases involving significant actuarial or financial issues. Given the complexity of the IBNR allocation issue in this case, we should anticipate requesting — and being granted — the opportunity to depose Pinnacle Atlantic's actuarial expert.
B. Litigation-Track discovery (NY CPLR)
If Pinnacle Atlantic files suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division, and our motion to compel arbitration is denied or otherwise fails, the full panoply of civil discovery under CPLR Article 31 will be available to both parties. The litigation track offers substantially broader discovery than the arbitration track, with the following key features:
Full CPLR Article 31 discovery. Under CPLR Article 31, the parties are entitled to pursue comprehensive discovery, including: document demands (CPLR § 3120), interrogatories (CPLR § 3130 et seq.), depositions upon oral examination (CPLR § 3107), non-party subpoenas (CPLR § 3106(b) and § 3120), physical and mental examinations (where applicable), and expert disclosure (CPLR § 3101(d)).
Automatic Disclosure Standard. CPLR § 3101(a) establishes the broad principle that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." The "material and necessary" standard, as interpreted by New York courts, is broadly construed to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy that will assist the requesting party in preparing for trial.
Commercial Division Rules. Because this matter — involving over $78 million in dispute — will be assigned to the Commercial Division upon filing, the additional requirements of 22 NYCRR § 202.70 will apply. These include, among other things:
• A mandatory preliminary conference at which the court enters a case scheduling order governing all phases of discovery.
• A comprehensive discovery plan to be submitted by the parties in advance of the preliminary conference, setting forth the scope of anticipated discovery, proposed deadlines, and any anticipated discovery disputes.
• Limits on interrogatories, generally capped at 25 interrogatories (including subparts), absent leave of court to serve additional interrogatories. Careful drafting is required to ensure that the most critical interrogatory topics are covered within this limit.
• Deposition time limits, with depositions generally limited to seven hours per witness absent agreement of the parties or leave of court.
• Enhanced requirements for privilege logs and for the expeditious resolution of discovery disputes through letters to the court rather than formal motion practice.
Non-Party Subpoenas. Under CPLR § 3106(b) and § 3120, the parties may issue subpoenas to compel non-party witnesses to appear for deposition and to produce documents. Non-party subpoenas must be accompanied by the payment of witness fees. Challenges to non-party subpoenas may be raised by motion to quash under CPLR § 2304, requiring the party seeking discovery to demonstrate the relevance and necessity of the materials sought.
Expert Disclosure. Expert disclosure in litigation is governed by CPLR § 3101(d)(1)(i), which requires disclosure of the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and the qualifications of the expert. Unlike federal practice, New York does not require the production of a formal expert report as a condition of expert testimony, but in the Commercial Division, courts frequently order the exchange of expert reports and expert depositions as part of the case scheduling order.
C. Recommended Approach
Given the uncertainty regarding the procedural track that will ultimately govern this dispute, our recommended approach is to prepare all discovery materials in a format that is readily adaptable to either track. Specifically:
1. Dual-Format discovery Requests. We will design document requests and interrogatories that can be served as formal discovery demands in litigation (CPLR §§ 3120, 3130) or submitted to the arbitration panel as proposed discovery orders. The substantive content of the requests will be identical; only the procedural framing will differ.
2. Prioritized Core Document Exchange. Regardless of forum, we will prioritize the early exchange of core treaty documentation, billing records, claims files, and actuarial workpapers. These categories of documents form the foundation of the dispute on all four grounds and are necessary for substantive legal and financial analysis irrespective of whether the matter proceeds in arbitration or litigation.
3. Scalable discovery Plan. The discovery plan set forth in this memorandum is designed to be scalable. In the arbitration track, the panel may narrow the scope of discovery — and we will be prepared to argue for the broadest permissible scope — but the underlying work product (drafted requests, identified custodians, collected and reviewed client documents) will be fully usable in litigation if the forum shifts.
4. Parallel Preparation. We will proceed with client document collection, privilege review, and witness interview preparation immediately, without waiting for resolution of the arbitration-clause dispute. These activities are necessary and appropriate regardless of forum and will ensure that we are not disadvantaged by delays in the threshold procedural dispute.
III. Document discovery — Categories and Targets
This section identifies the specific categories of documents to be requested from Pinnacle Atlantic and collected from QC&S/QIH. The categories are organized to track the four dispute grounds raised by Pinnacle Atlantic, supplemented by additional categories addressing the treaty relationship, the parties' course of dealing, and the pre-suit demand.
A. Documents to Be Requested from Pinnacle Atlantic Reinsurance Ltd.
Category 1: Treaty Formation and Underwriting
This category targets documents establishing the foundation of the Treaty relationship and the parties' underwriting intent. These documents are critical for interpreting the Treaty provisions at the center of the dispute — particularly the notice requirements of Article 7, the "losses incurred" definition in Article 5, the follow-the-fortunes provision in Article 11, and the ceded earned premium provisions of Article 3.
Specifically, we will request:
(a) The complete executed copy of Treaty No. PA-QCS-2019-EXL-0044, including all endorsements, addenda, amendments, side letters, and extension agreements from inception (July 1, 2019) through the most recent treaty period ending June 30, 2026, to ensure that our copy of the Treaty is complete and conforms to Pinnacle Atlantic's copy. Although QC&S maintains its own treaty file, it is important to verify consistency and to identify any instruments that may not appear in QC&S's records.
(b) Pinnacle Atlantic's complete underwriting files for the Treaty, including all risk assessments, pricing models, exposure analyses, actuarial analyses prepared by or for Pinnacle Atlantic at inception and at each annual renewal. These documents will reveal Pinnacle Atlantic's understanding of the risks covered, the loss development assumptions built into the pricing, and the anticipated claims profile — all of which are relevant to the IBNR allocation dispute and to Pinnacle Atlantic's expectations regarding the aggregate retention levels.
(c) All correspondence, communications, and documents exchanged between Pinnacle Atlantic and Broadreach Intermediaries Inc. regarding the placement, renewal, amendment, or extension of the Treaty from inception through the present. Broadreach served as the designated intermediary under Treaty Article 9, and its communications with Pinnacle Atlantic may contain important contemporaneous statements bearing on the parties' intent and understanding of key Treaty provisions.
(d) All internal Pinnacle Atlantic memoranda, board or committee approvals, authorization documents, risk appetite assessments, and management presentations relating to the Treaty, including without limitation any documents reflecting Pinnacle Atlantic's decision to enter into, renew, or extend the Treaty at each anniversary.
Category 2: Loss Reporting and Billing
This category targets the complete record of loss reporting and billing under the Treaty, with particular emphasis on the seven billing installments totaling $78,400,000 that Pinnacle Atlantic now seeks to recover. These documents are essential to our waiver/estoppel defense, as they will establish whether Pinnacle Atlantic had full information about the ceded losses at the time it made each payment.
(a) All loss reports, bordereaux, and claims advices received by Pinnacle Atlantic from QC&S (whether directly or transmitted through Broadreach) for all treaty years from TY 2019 through TY 2023. While the dispute focuses on TY 2022 and TY 2023, earlier treaty years may be relevant to establishing the parties' course of dealing with respect to loss reporting format, timing, and content.
(b) Pinnacle Atlantic's internal analysis, review, and evaluation of each billing installment submitted by QC&S under the Treaty. QC&S submitted seven billing installments between October 15, 2022 (first installment of $15,000,000) and March 29, 2024 (final installment of $3,200,000), totaling $78,400,000. We require all documents reflecting Pinnacle Atlantic's internal processing and review of these billings, including any analyses, questions, or concerns raised internally at the time of each billing.
(c) Complete payment records and wire transfer confirmations for all amounts paid by Pinnacle Atlantic under the Treaty, including but not limited to the seven billing installments at issue. These records will establish the precise dates and amounts of payment and confirm that Pinnacle Atlantic paid each installment in full.
(d) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's decision to pay each of the seven billing installments without objection, including any internal communications, approval chains, claims committee minutes, or management authorizations. These documents are directly relevant to our waiver/estoppel theory: Pinnacle Atlantic cannot have been uninformed about the nature and basis of the cessions at the time of payment, given that each billing was accompanied by supporting documentation.
Category 3: Late Notice Claim (Article 7 / Meridian Docks)
The late notice claim represents a significant component of Pinnacle Atlantic's challenge, as the Meridian Docks mass tort cluster constitutes a substantial portion of the ceded losses under TY 2022. Pinnacle Atlantic asserts that QC&S was obligated to provide notice of these claims promptly upon first reserving them (March 15, 2021) and that the May 22, 2022 notice was untimely by approximately 14 months and 7 days. Our defense is that individual Meridian Docks claims were below the $1,000,000 individual reporting threshold specified in Article 7.3 until Q1 2022 reserve increases, and that QC&S provided notice promptly once the aggregate reserve crossed the applicable threshold. Discovery on this issue must be thorough and must target Pinnacle Atlantic's ability to demonstrate actual prejudice.
(a) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's receipt and processing of notice of the Meridian Docks mass tort cluster (31 CGL claims under Policy No. CGL-2020-09844), including but not limited to the May 22, 2022 notice transmitted via Broadreach. This request encompasses all internal routing documents, acknowledgments, claims file creation records, and follow-up correspondence.
(b) Pinnacle Atlantic's complete claims file, investigation notes, and internal analyses relating to the Meridian Docks claims, from the date of first notice through the present. We need to understand what Pinnacle Atlantic did — and did not do — upon receiving notice, which bears directly on the prejudice question.
(c) All documents evidencing or relating to any prejudice that Pinnacle Atlantic claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged late notice, including any documents reflecting lost rights to associate in the defense, inability to investigate the underlying claims, adverse developments in the claims that allegedly could have been mitigated by earlier notice, or any other form of specific, demonstrable prejudice. Under New York law applicable to reinsurance disputes, the reinsurer bears the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice from late notice, and this document request is designed to test the strength of that showing.
(d) All documents reflecting prior instances under this Treaty — or under other treaties between Pinnacle Atlantic (or any affiliate within Pinnacle Atlantic Group Holdings Ltd.) and QC&S — where Pinnacle Atlantic received notice of claims, including the timing of such notices relative to the cedent's first reserving of the underlying claims. This category is directed to establishing the parties' course of dealing with respect to notice timing, which is relevant to interpreting the Article 7 notice requirements and to evaluating whether the 14-month gap was inconsistent with the parties' established practice.
Category 4: IBNR Allocation Dispute (Article 5)
The IBNR allocation dispute is the most technically complex of the four dispute grounds. Pinnacle Atlantic asserts that $22,300,000 in IBNR reserve strengthening that QC&S allocated to TY 2022 should instead be allocated to TY 2021, with the result that TY 2021 aggregate net incurred losses ($104,600,000) would remain below the $120,000,000 Treaty retention and TY 2022 ceded losses would be reduced by $22,300,000. Discovery on this issue must obtain Pinnacle Atlantic's complete actuarial analysis and expose the methodology underlying its alternative allocation theory.
(a) Pinnacle Atlantic's complete actuarial analyses, workpapers, loss development triangles, and supporting data underlying its contention that $22,300,000 in IBNR reserve strengthening should be allocated to TY 2021 (accident-year 2021 exposures) rather than TY 2022 (accident-year 2022 development), including all assumptions, methods, and alternative calculations considered and rejected.
(b) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's calculation that TY 2021 aggregate net incurred losses were $104,600,000, including the components of that calculation, the data sources used, and any reconciliations or cross-checks performed.
(c) All internal or external actuarial reviews, analyses, or opinions obtained by Pinnacle Atlantic regarding QC&S's reported aggregate net incurred losses for TY 2021 ($104,600,000), TY 2022 ($189,700,000), and TY 2023 ($128,700,000), including without limitation any actuarial studies, reserve analyses, or loss development projections prepared by Pinnacle Atlantic's in-house actuaries or by any retained external actuarial consultants.
(d) All communications between Pinnacle Atlantic and any retained actuaries, consultants, or advisors regarding the IBNR allocation issue, including but not limited to engagement letters, instructions, draft and final reports, and any feedback or commentary provided by Pinnacle Atlantic personnel on actuarial analyses.
Category 5: Follow-the-Fortunes / Veridian E&O Cluster (Article 11)
Pinnacle Atlantic's challenge to the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster settlement is framed as a departure from the follow-the-fortunes doctrine codified in Treaty Article 11. Under established New York law, the follow-the-fortunes doctrine requires the reinsurer to follow the cedent's good-faith claims decisions absent fraud, bad faith, or a claim that does not fall within the scope of coverage. Discovery on this issue must probe the basis for Pinnacle Atlantic's allegation that QC&S's settlement lacked a meaningful litigation exposure analysis and was at inflated amounts.
(a) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's review and analysis of the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster settlement, including the $34,500,000 aggregate settlement (Claim A — $14,200,000; Claim B — $12,800,000; Claim C — $7,500,000), settled on September 8, 2023. This request encompasses all internal memoranda, claims reviews, actuarial or financial analyses, and management presentations prepared by or for Pinnacle Atlantic regarding the Veridian settlement.
(b) All documents supporting Pinnacle Atlantic's specific allegation that the settlement lacked meaningful litigation exposure analysis and was effected at inflated amounts, including any benchmarking analyses, comparable settlement data, or independent coverage opinions obtained by Pinnacle Atlantic.
(c) All communications between Pinnacle Atlantic and QC&S (whether direct or transmitted through Broadreach) regarding the Veridian claims before and after the September 8, 2023 settlement, including any pre-settlement notifications, requests for information, or post-settlement objections.
(d) Pinnacle Atlantic's internal claims committee minutes, approval documents, or management reports relating to the Veridian claims, from the date of first notification through the present.
Category 6: Premium Reporting Dispute (Article 3)
The premium reporting dispute is narrower in dollar terms ($6,800,000) than the other dispute grounds but carries significant implications because Pinnacle Atlantic asserts that the premium discrepancy entitles it to a treaty termination right or offset. Discovery must obtain Pinnacle Atlantic's detailed calculations and expose the specific items at issue.
(a) Pinnacle Atlantic's complete calculation and supporting workpapers for its assertion that TY 2022 ceded earned premium was $45,200,000, rather than the $38,400,000 reported by QC&S — a discrepancy of $6,800,000. The workpapers should itemize each component of ceded earned premium as calculated by Pinnacle Atlantic and identify the specific amounts at issue.
(b) All documents relating to treaty premium calculations under the slide-scale adjustment mechanism set forth in the Treaty (provisional rate of 42%, minimum 35%, maximum 52%), including any alternative calculations, sensitivity analyses, or modeling performed by Pinnacle Atlantic in connection with the premium dispute.
(c) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's assertion that the $6,800,000 premium discrepancy entitles it to a treaty termination right, premium offset, or other contractual remedy, including any internal legal analyses or external legal opinions obtained by Pinnacle Atlantic on this issue.
(d) All documents relating to the treatment of run-off portfolio transfer premiums under Article 3 of the Treaty and whether such premiums are includable in the calculation of ceded earned premium. QC&S's position is that Article 3.4 expressly excludes run-off portfolio transfer premiums, and discovery should probe the basis for any contrary interpretation advanced by Pinnacle Atlantic.
Category 7: Reservation of Rights and Demand
This category targets the documents underlying Pinnacle Atlantic's decision to challenge the Treaty billings nearly two years after paying them in full. These documents are directly relevant to our waiver/estoppel defense and to understanding the genesis and strategy of Pinnacle Atlantic's claims.
(a) All internal documents, communications, and analyses leading to Pinnacle Atlantic's reservation-of-rights letter dated December 12, 2025, including drafts, internal discussions, claims reviews, management approvals, and instructions to outside counsel. We seek to understand when Pinnacle Atlantic first began to question the Treaty billings and what prompted the reservation of rights approximately 21 months after the final payment.
(b) All internal documents, communications, and analyses leading to the pre-suit demand letter of February 14, 2026, transmitted by HFC, including all instructions to HFC, drafts of the demand letter, internal Pinnacle Atlantic approvals, and analyses supporting the specific amounts demanded.
(c) All documents relating to Pinnacle Atlantic's calculation of $12,600,000 in interest (asserted at approximately 8% per annum over an average outstanding period of approximately 24 months), including the contractual or statutory authority relied upon, the interest rate applied, the time period over which interest was calculated, and the principal balance(s) to which interest was applied.
(d) All documents relating to the non-renewal notice dated October 1, 2025, including the internal decision-making process, communications with Broadreach, and any relationship between the non-renewal decision and the claims asserted in the demand letter.
Category 8: Arbitration Clause Dispute
This category addresses the threshold procedural issue of whether Treaty Article 22 mandates arbitration of Pinnacle Atlantic's claims. HFC's February 14, 2026 demand letter asserted — without detailed analysis — that Article 22 is inapplicable to the specific claims raised.
(a) All documents supporting HFC's assertion that Treaty Article 22 is inapplicable to the specific claims raised in the February 14, 2026 demand letter, including any internal analyses, legal memoranda, or external legal opinions obtained by Pinnacle Atlantic on this issue.
(b) All documents relating to any prior arbitration demands, proceedings, or settlements under this Treaty or any related or predecessor treaties between Pinnacle Atlantic (or any affiliate) and QC&S (or any QIH affiliate), which would be relevant to the parties' course of dealing and shared understanding regarding the scope of the arbitration clause.
B. Documents to Be Collected from QC&S / QIH (Privilege Review and Production Preparation)
Parallel to our requests to Pinnacle Atlantic, we must collect, review, and prepare for production the following categories of documents from QC&S and QIH. All documents collected from the client will undergo rigorous privilege review before any production or exchange with Pinnacle Atlantic or the arbitration panel.
(a) Complete Treaty File. The complete treaty file maintained by Tobias Engström's reinsurance department at QIH, including all correspondence with Broadreach and Pinnacle Atlantic, all endorsements and amendments, and all premium and claims-related transmittals from inception of the Treaty through the present.
(b) Meridian Docks Claims Files. QC&S's complete claims files for all 31 Meridian Docks mass tort claims (Policy No. CGL-2020-09844), including: initial reserve setting memoranda (reserves first established March 15, 2021); all subsequent reserve increases, adjustments, and reserve reviews; all notice correspondence with reinsurers (including the May 22, 2022 notice transmitted via Broadreach); defense counsel reports; investigation files; and claims committee minutes relating to the Meridian Docks claims. These files are critical to establishing QC&S's position that individual claims were below the Article 7.3 reporting threshold until Q1 2022 and that notice was provided promptly upon crossing the applicable threshold.
(c) Veridian E&O Claims Files. QC&S's complete claims files for all three Veridian Financial Services E&O claims (Policy No. PL-2021-15327), including: settlement evaluation memoranda; litigation exposure analyses; coverage analyses; defense counsel reports and recommendations; claims committee minutes and approvals; the settlement agreement itself; and all internal analyses supporting the business judgment to settle at $34,500,000. These files will demonstrate that QC&S conducted a thorough litigation exposure analysis and reached a reasonable, good-faith settlement decision entitled to follow-the-fortunes deference.
(d) Actuarial Materials. All actuarial certificates, loss development analyses, IBNR analyses, reserve opinions, and supporting workpapers prepared by Velthorn Actuarial Advisors LLC (Principal Actuary: Dr. Stephen Tanaka, FCAS, MAAA) for TY 2021, TY 2022, and TY 2023. These materials are the foundation of QC&S's IBNR allocation methodology and will need to be produced (subject to privilege review) in connection with the Article 5 dispute.
(e) Billing Documentation. All billing installment documentation, including the calculations, supporting schedules, and transmittal correspondence for each of the seven installments submitted between October 15, 2022 (first installment: $15,000,000) and March 29, 2024 (final installment: $3,200,000), as well as all correspondence from Pinnacle Atlantic or Broadreach acknowledging receipt and confirming payment.
(f) Ceded Earned Premium Calculations. All workpapers, schedules, and supporting documentation for the TY 2022 ceded earned premium calculation of $38,400,000, including specific documentation of the amounts excluded under Article 3.4 as run-off portfolio transfer premiums. These materials will be essential for defending against the $6,800,000 premium reporting allegation.
(g) Internal Dispute-Related Communications. All internal QC&S and QIH communications regarding the Pinnacle Atlantic reservation-of-rights letter (December 12, 2025) and the pre-suit demand (February 14, 2026), including communications with the QIH board, Audit Committee, senior management, and in-house counsel. These documents will require particularly careful privilege review, as many communications during this period will be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
(h) Board and Audit Committee Materials. QIH Board of Directors and Audit Committee materials relating to the dispute, commencing with the February 24, 2026 board authorization to retain Calderwood & Harkness and continuing through the present. Again, careful privilege review will be required.
(i) Litigation Hold Compliance. All documents responsive to the litigation hold notice issued on March 4, 2026 to relevant custodians at QC&S and QIH. The litigation hold memorandum, which was distributed to all identified custodians with instructions to preserve all potentially relevant documents in any format, serves as the foundation for our document collection and production process. We will work with QIH's information technology team and outside e-discovery vendors to ensure comprehensive collection.
Privilege Review Protocol. All documents collected from QC&S and QIH will undergo a comprehensive privilege review before any production to Pinnacle Atlantic or submission to the arbitration panel. The privilege review will be conducted by the C&H litigation team (led by Yuki Nakamura under my supervision) and will apply the following protocols: (i) all documents involving communications with C&H, Harmon & Whitfield LLP, or any other outside counsel will be presumptively withheld and reviewed for privilege; (ii) all documents reflecting the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of counsel will be identified and withheld under the work product doctrine; (iii) a detailed privilege log will be maintained in compliance with applicable procedural requirements; and (iv) documents prepared by Velthorn Actuarial Advisors at the direction of counsel will be evaluated individually for potential work product protection.
IV. Interrogatories — Proposed Topics
A. Interrogatories to Pinnacle Atlantic (First Set)
The following ten interrogatories are proposed for service on Pinnacle Atlantic. Each interrogatory is designed to elicit specific factual and methodological information bearing on the four dispute grounds, the interest claim, the arbitration-clause dispute, and the identity of witnesses and experts. In the litigation track, these interrogatories must comply with the Commercial Division's 25-interrogatory limit (22 NYCRR § 202.70, Rule 11-a), which includes subparts; the proposed set of ten interrogatories should fall well within that limit, leaving room for a second set if needed. In the arbitration track, these interrogatories will be submitted to the panel as proposed written questions.
Interrogatory No. 1 — Late Notice — Factual Basis. Identify with particularity all facts supporting Pinnacle Atlantic's allegation that QC&S failed to provide timely notice of the Meridian Docks mass tort claims (31 CGL claims under Policy No. CGL-2020-09844) under Article 7 of the Treaty, including: (a) the specific date or dates on which Pinnacle Atlantic contends notice was required; (b) the specific Treaty provision or provisions triggered, including the applicable notice threshold; (c) the specific acts or omissions by QC&S that Pinnacle Atlantic contends constituted a failure to comply with the notice requirements; and (d) all facts evidencing the specific prejudice Pinnacle Atlantic claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged late notice, including but not limited to any lost rights to associate in the defense, inability to investigate the underlying claims, or adverse claim developments that allegedly could have been mitigated by earlier notice.
Interrogatory No. 2 — IBNR Allocation — Actuarial Basis. State the complete actuarial and factual basis for Pinnacle Atlantic's contention that $22,300,000 in IBNR reserve strengthening should be allocated to TY 2021 (accident-year 2021 exposures) rather than TY 2022 (accident-year 2022 development), including: (a) identification of all actuarial methodologies employed (e.g., Bornhuetter-Ferguson, chain-ladder, loss ratio method); (b) all loss development factors and lag factors applied; (c) all accident-year analyses, loss development triangles, and reserving data relied upon; (d) the specific Treaty provision or provisions requiring or supporting the proposed reallocation; and (e) the identity and qualifications of all persons who performed or supervised the actuarial analyses.
Interrogatory No. 3 — Follow-the-Fortunes — Basis for Challenge. State all facts supporting Pinnacle Atlantic's allegation that QC&S settled the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster (Claim A — $14,200,000; Claim B — $12,800,000; Claim C — $7,500,000; total $34,500,000; settled September 8, 2023) "without meaningful litigation exposure analysis and at inflated amounts," including: (a) the specific standard of review Pinnacle Atlantic contends applies under Article 11 of the Treaty and New York law; (b) the specific facts or evidence Pinnacle Atlantic relies upon to establish that QC&S's settlement did not satisfy the applicable standard; (c) the amount at which Pinnacle Atlantic contends each Veridian claim should reasonably have been settled; and (d) the basis for any such alternative valuation.
Interrogatory No. 4 — Premium Reporting — Calculation Methodology. Provide a complete reconciliation of Pinnacle Atlantic's calculation of $45,200,000 in TY 2022 ceded earned premium, itemizing each component included in the calculation and setting forth the specific basis for inclusion. In particular, identify: (a) the specific line items that account for the $6,800,000 difference between Pinnacle Atlantic's calculation ($45,200,000) and QC&S's reported ceded earned premium ($38,400,000); (b) the contractual basis under Article 3 of the Treaty for including each disputed line item; and (c) the specific basis for Pinnacle Atlantic's position that run-off portfolio transfer premiums excluded by QC&S under Article 3.4 should be included in the ceded earned premium calculation.
Interrogatory No. 5 — Interest Calculation. State the complete basis for Pinnacle Atlantic's claim of $12,600,000 in accrued interest, including: (a) the contractual or statutory authority for the interest claim; (b) the interest rate applied; (c) the date from which interest began to accrue for each component of the $78,400,000 principal; (d) the compounding methodology (if any); and (e) a detailed schedule showing the calculation of interest for each billing installment.
Interrogatory No. 6 — Arbitration Clause Inapplicability. State all facts and legal bases for the assertion, set forth in the February 14, 2026 demand letter from HFC, that Treaty Article 22 does not apply to the specific claims raised in that demand letter, including: (a) the specific language of Article 22 that Pinnacle Atlantic contends limits its scope; (b) the specific claims or categories of claims that Pinnacle Atlantic contends fall outside the scope of Article 22; and (c) any extrinsic evidence or course-of-dealing history that Pinnacle Atlantic relies upon to support its interpretation of the arbitration clause.
Interrogatory No. 7 — Persons with Knowledge. Identify all persons with knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying each of the four grounds asserted in the February 14, 2026 demand letter (Article 7 late notice, Article 5 IBNR allocation, Article 11 follow-the-fortunes, and Article 3 premium reporting), including for each such person: (a) full name; (b) current title and employer; (c) the specific dispute ground(s) on which the person has knowledge; and (d) a brief description of the subject matter of their knowledge.
Interrogatory No. 8 — Prior Treaty Disputes. Identify all prior disputes, arbitration demands, arbitration proceedings, mediation proceedings, litigation, or settlement agreements between Pinnacle Atlantic (or any affiliate within Pinnacle Atlantic Group Holdings Ltd.) and QC&S (or any affiliate within QIH) arising under any reinsurance treaty, including: (a) the treaty or treaties at issue; (b) the nature of the dispute; (c) the forum in which the dispute was resolved; (d) the date of resolution; and (e) the outcome, including whether the dispute was resolved by award, judgment, or settlement.
Interrogatory No. 9 — Payment Without Objection. For each of the seven billing installments totaling $78,400,000 paid by Pinnacle Atlantic between October 2022 and March 2024: (a) identify all persons involved in the decision to authorize and process payment; (b) describe the internal review and approval procedures followed before each payment was authorized; (c) identify all documents reviewed in connection with the approval of each payment; (d) state whether any person within Pinnacle Atlantic raised any question, concern, or objection regarding any aspect of the billing before payment was authorized; and (e) if any such question, concern, or objection was raised, describe the substance of the question, concern, or objection and state whether and how it was resolved.
Interrogatory No. 10 — Retained Experts and Consultants. Identify all experts, consultants, and actuaries retained by Pinnacle Atlantic in connection with this dispute or in connection with any analysis of the four dispute grounds raised in the February 14, 2026 demand letter, including for each: (a) full name and firm name; (b) the date of retention; (c) the subject matter of their engagement; and (d) whether they have prepared or are expected to prepare a written report.
B. Format Notes
The ten interrogatories set forth above are designed to work within the constraints of both procedural tracks:
• Litigation Track: The proposed set of ten interrogatories, as drafted, should comply with the Commercial Division's 25-interrogatory limit. However, certain of the interrogatories contain multiple subparts, and if the court adopts a strict counting methodology, we may need to consolidate or prioritize. We recommend treating Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 (corresponding to the four dispute grounds) as the highest priority, followed by Interrogatory No. 9 (payment without objection, supporting the waiver/estoppel defense) and Interrogatory No. 7 (persons with knowledge, essential for deposition planning). A second set of interrogatories may be served later in the case if warranted.
• Arbitration Track: We will submit the interrogatories to the panel as proposed written questions. We should anticipate that the panel may narrow the scope or combine certain questions. However, arbitration panels in complex reinsurance disputes generally recognize the value of focused written questions that narrow the issues and reduce hearing time. We will include a cover letter to the panel explaining the relevance of each interrogatory to the identified dispute grounds.
V. Deposition Targets
This section identifies the witnesses we intend to depose (adverse party and third-party witnesses) and the QC&S witnesses we anticipate Pinnacle Atlantic will seek to depose (requiring preparation by our team). The witnesses are listed in priority order within each category.
A. Party Witnesses — Pinnacle Atlantic
1. Conrad Hesse, SVP, Treaty Disputes & Recoveries, Pinnacle Atlantic Reinsurance Ltd.
Subject Matter: Mr. Hesse is the senior Pinnacle Atlantic executive who led the investigation and analysis of the disputed Treaty cessions. Based on information available to us, Mr. Hesse directed the internal review that culminated in the December 12, 2025 reservation-of-rights letter and coordinated with HFC on the development and transmission of the February 14, 2026 pre-suit demand. He is likely the person most knowledgeable about Pinnacle Atlantic's factual and analytical basis for all four dispute grounds and is expected to be Pinnacle Atlantic's corporate designee on most deposition topics.
Key Topics: The deposition of Mr. Hesse should cover the following areas in detail:
• The decision-making process within Pinnacle Atlantic that led to the challenge of the TY 2022 and TY 2023 cessions, including when the decision was first considered, who was involved, and what internal analyses were conducted;
• The internal actuarial reviews and analyses performed by or for Pinnacle Atlantic in connection with the IBNR reallocation theory, including Mr. Hesse's role in directing those analyses and his understanding of the methodological conclusions;
• Pinnacle Atlantic's calculation of the alleged $22,300,000 IBNR misallocation and the impact of that reallocation on TY 2021 and TY 2022 aggregate net incurred losses;
• Pinnacle Atlantic's review of the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster settlement and the basis for the allegation that the settlement was at inflated amounts;
• The premium audit or review process that led to Pinnacle Atlantic's identification of the alleged $6,800,000 ceded earned premium discrepancy;
• The basis for the $12,600,000 interest calculation asserted in the demand letter;
• The internal decision to pay all seven billing installments totaling $78,400,000 between October 2022 and March 2024 without contemporaneous objection — the circumstances under which payment was authorized, the information available at the time, and whether any internal concerns or reservations were noted but not communicated to QC&S or Broadreach;
• The relationship between the October 1, 2025 non-renewal notice and the subsequent reservation of rights and demand;
• Mr. Hesse's communications with HFC regarding the strategy and substance of the dispute.
Priority: High — Mr. Hesse is the most important deposition target in this case.
Estimated Duration: Two full days (seven hours each day). Given the breadth of Mr. Hesse's involvement and the number of dispute grounds to be covered, two full deposition days are necessary and justified. In the litigation track, we may need to seek leave of court to exceed the standard seven-hour time limit for a single deposition; alternatively, we may notice Mr. Hesse in both his individual capacity and as Pinnacle Atlantic's corporate designee (analogous to a CPLR § 3106 notice), which would provide separate deposition time allocations.
2. Lorraine Metcalf, Chief Claims Officer, Pinnacle Atlantic Reinsurance Ltd.
Subject Matter: Ms. Metcalf, as Pinnacle Atlantic's Chief Claims Officer, has oversight responsibility for Pinnacle Atlantic's claims handling functions, including the review of ceded losses under the Treaty. She is expected to have direct knowledge of Pinnacle Atlantic's assessment of the Meridian Docks late notice issue and the evaluation of the Veridian settlement reasonableness.
Key Topics:
• Pinnacle Atlantic's claims review procedures and protocols for evaluating ceded losses under aggregate excess-of-loss treaties, including the specific procedures applied to the Treaty;
• Ms. Metcalf's assessment of the alleged prejudice resulting from the purported late notice of the Meridian Docks mass tort claims, including whether Pinnacle Atlantic would have taken any specific action — such as associating in the defense, conducting an independent investigation, or seeking additional information — had notice been received earlier;
• Pinnacle Atlantic's review and analysis of the Veridian Financial Services E&O cluster settlement ($34,500,000), including the claims review methodology applied, any independent coverage or valuation analyses obtained, and the basis for concluding that the settlement was at inflated amounts;
• Any prior claims interactions between Ms. Metcalf's department and QC&S or Broadreach under this Treaty or related treaties, which may bear on the parties' course of dealing;
• Industry customs and practices for reinsurance claims notification under aggregate excess-of-loss treaties, including customary notice timing and the treatment of claims below individual reporting thresholds.
Priority: High — Ms. Metcalf is a critical witness on the late notice and follow-the-fortunes issues, which together represent the majority of the dollars in dispute.
Estimated Duration: One full day (seven hours).
B. Third-Party Witnesses
3. James "Jamie" Castellano, Account Executive, Broadreach Intermediaries Inc.
Subject Matter: Broadreach Intermediaries Inc. served as the designated intermediary under Treaty Article 9 and handled all premium and claims-settlement transmittals between QC&S and Pinnacle Atlantic throughout the Treaty period. Mr. Castellano is the Broadreach account executive responsible for the QC&S/Pinnacle Atlantic Treaty and has direct, first-hand knowledge of the timing and content of all communications transmitted between the parties. As an intermediary — rather than an employee of either party — Mr. Castellano is a critical independent witness whose testimony on notice timing, billing transmittal, and course of dealing will carry significant weight.
Key Topics:
• The history of Treaty placement and renewal, including Mr. Castellano's role in intermediating the relationship between QC&S and Pinnacle Atlantic;
• The receipt and transmission of QC&S's May 22, 2022 notice regarding the Meridian Docks mass tort claims — specifically, the date Broadreach received the notice from QC&S, the date it was transmitted to Pinnacle Atlantic, and any contemporaneous communications or follow-up;
• The handling of all seven billing installments (October 2022 through March 2024), including the supporting documentation transmitted with each billing, any communications from Pinnacle Atlantic questioning or objecting to the billings, and Broadreach's records of Pinnacle Atlantic's payment of each installment;
• The handling of premium reports and ceded earned premium calculations transmitted between the parties, including the treatment of run-off portfolio transfer premiums;
• The course of dealing between QC&S and Pinnacle Atlantic over the life of the Treaty, including any prior disputes, objections, or communications regarding notice timing, claims cessions, or premium calculations;
• Any communications from Pinnacle Atlantic to Broadreach regarding the December 12, 2025 reservation-of-rights letter, the October 1, 2025 non-renewal notice, or the February 14, 2026 demand letter.
Priority: High — Mr. Castellano is the most critical independent fact witness in this dispute.
Estimated Duration: One full day (seven hours).
Procedural Notes: Mr. Castellano is a non-party witness. In the litigation track, his deposition will require a third-party subpoena pursuant to CPLR § 3106(b). In the arbitration track, his deposition will require either voluntary cooperation from Broadreach or a petition to the NY Supreme Court for issuance of a subpoena in aid of arbitration under CPLR § 7505. We should coordinate with Broadreach's counsel (to be identified) regarding the scheduling and scope of the deposition. Broadreach Intermediaries Inc. is located at 100 Wall Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10005, which is within the subpoena jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
4. Dr. Stephen Tanaka, FCAS, MAAA, Principal Actuary, Velthorn Actuarial Advisors LLC
Subject Matter: Dr. Tanaka prepared the loss development and reserve analyses underlying the disputed Treaty cessions, including the actuarial certificates for the TY 2022 and TY 2023 billings. He is the central witness on the IBNR allocation methodology that Pinnacle Atlantic challenges and is therefore critical to the defense of the $22,300,000 IBNR allocation issue.
Key Topics:
• The methodology employed by Dr. Tanaka and his team at Velthorn for allocating IBNR development to accident-year 2022 versus accident-year 2021, including the specific actuarial techniques applied (e.g., chain-ladder, Bornhuetter-Ferguson, expected loss ratio), the selection of loss development factors, and the rationale for the allocation to TY 2022;
• The loss development triangles and reserving data used as inputs to the IBNR allocation analysis for TY 2021, TY 2022, and TY 2023;
• Compliance with Actuarial Standards of Practice ("ASOPs"), particularly ASOP No. 43 (Unpaid Claim Estimates) and ASOP No. 36 (Statements of Actuarial Opinion Regarding Property/Casualty Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves), and whether the methodology employed was consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles;
• The basis for the actuarial certificates provided in connection with the TY 2022 and TY 2023 billings, including the data reviewed, the assumptions made, and any limitations or qualifications noted;
• Dr. Tanaka's interactions with QC&S claims and reserving personnel in connection with the IBNR analyses, including the data provided by QC&S and any discussions regarding reserve adequacy;
• Dr. Tanaka's assessment of Pinnacle Atlantic's alternative allocation theory — specifically, whether the reallocation of $22,300,000 to TY 2021 would be actuarially supportable under the methodologies and data available.
Priority: High — Dr. Tanaka is a key fact witness and quasi-expert witness on the IBNR issue, which involves $22,300,000 of the disputed recoverables.
Estimated Duration: One full day (seven hours).
Procedural Notes: Velthorn Actuarial Advisors LLC is QC&S's retained consulting actuary. As a result, Dr. Tanaka's deposition may be arranged as a friendly witness deposition if taken by our side, or he may be subpoenaed by Pinnacle Atlantic as a fact witness. In either event, coordination with the client is essential to identify and preserve any privilege issues arising from communications between Velthorn and C&H during the course of the engagement. Dr. Tanaka and Velthorn are located at 75 Ashbury Asset Advisors, Suite 1400, Boston, MA 02109. If a subpoena is required, it will need to be issued through the appropriate Massachusetts or New York procedural mechanism depending on whether the deposition is conducted in Boston or New York.
C. QC&S Fact Witnesses (Preparation for Opposing Depositions)
We anticipate that Pinnacle Atlantic (through HFC) will seek to depose the following QC&S personnel. Our team must prepare these witnesses thoroughly.
5. Tobias Engström, SVP, Reinsurance & Capital Markets, QIH
Anticipated Subject Matter if Deposed by HFC: Mr. Engström is the QIH executive responsible for reinsurance strategy and treaty management. HFC is likely to seek his deposition on the negotiation and execution of the Treaty, including the parties' intent with respect to key provisions (Articles 3, 5, 7, 11, and 22); treaty renewal and extension decisions; oversight of ceded premium reporting and the Article 3.4 exclusion of run-off portfolio transfer premiums; communications with Broadreach and Pinnacle Atlantic throughout the Treaty period; and Mr. Engström's understanding of and involvement in the current dispute.
Preparation Priority: High — Mr. Engström is likely Pinnacle Atlantic's first deposition target among QC&S personnel.
Key Preparation Issues: We must ensure that Mr. Engström's testimony is fully consistent with C&H's treaty interpretation positions, particularly with respect to: (i) the Article 3.4 exclusion of run-off portfolio transfer premiums and the basis for QC&S's ceded earned premium calculation; (ii) the Article 22 arbitration clause and the parties' shared intent that all treaty disputes be resolved through arbitration; and (iii) the Article 7 notice provisions and QC&S's interpretation of the applicable reporting thresholds. We must also prepare Mr. Engström on the appropriate handling of privilege issues — specifically, the boundary between his business knowledge (Discoverable) and his communications with C&H and other counsel regarding the dispute (privileged).
6. Diana Kessler-Hoff, VP, Claims & Reinsurance Recoveries, QC&S
Anticipated Subject Matter if Deposed by HFC: Ms. Kessler-Hoff is the QC&S claims executive with direct responsibility for claims handling, reserving practices, and reinsurance recovery billings. HFC is likely to focus her deposition on: the timeline of Meridian Docks claims reserving (first reserved March 15, 2021) and the decision regarding when to notify reinsurers (May 22, 2022); QC&S's interpretation of the Article 7 reporting thresholds, including the individual claim reporting threshold of $1,000,000 under Article 7.3; the Veridian Financial Services E&O settlement process, including the claims committee's involvement, the litigation exposure analysis performed, and the rationale for the $34,500,000 aggregate settlement; and the cession calculations for TY 2022 and TY 2023.
Preparation Priority: High — Ms. Kessler-Hoff is the critical witness on