Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
279 F. Supp. 2d 235 (2003)


Duane Reade, Inc. (Duane Reade) (plaintiff) operated a drugstore in the retail concourse of the World Trade Center (WTC). On September 11, 2001, Duane Reade’s drug store was destroyed along with the WTC. Duane Reade sought to collect for business interruption under an insurance policy it held with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) (defendant). Coverage under the policy was limited to a defined restoration period. The restoration period encompassed the length of time, with due diligence, it would take for Duane Reade’s business to be restored to the condition it would have been in had no incident occurred. Duane Reade and St. Paul could not agree on what constituted the restoration period under the policy. Duane Reade sued St. Paul, seeking a declaratory judgment, to define the restoration period, and damages for breach of contract. St. Paul moved to dismiss all the claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Duane Reade’s breach-of-contract claim as premature but permitted the declaratory judgment claim to continue. After discovery was completed, both Duane Reade and St. Paul moved for summary judgment. St. Paul did not deny that the destruction of the drug store was covered under the policy. In May 2002, St. Paul paid $9,863,853 to Duane Reade for businesses-interruption losses. St. Paul based its calculation for this amount on the assumption that the replacement store would have been open within nine months. St. Paul disputed that it owed any additional money toward business interruption. St. Paul claimed that the restoration period expired when chain-wide sales reached pre-incident levels. Duane Reade claimed that the restoration period would expire when the WTC was rebuilt.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rakoff, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial