OPINION AND ORDER This case involves an insurance coverage dispute that is the subject of two competing lawsuits for declaratory relief in two different federal district courts. Because this action was filed before the other action, and because no special circumstances counsel against applying the well-established presumption that only the first-filed action should proceed to the merits, the Court concludes that this action shall receive priority over the later-filed action. I. Background The following facts are taken from the operative complaint. (See Dkt. No. 9 (“Compl.”).) Sixth & Lenora Apartments, LLC owns Via6 Apartments, a property located in Seattle, Washington. (Compl. 14.) In 2017, Sixth & Lenora Apartments filed suit in Washington state court against various entities, alleging that the plumbing system installed at Via6 Apartments was defective. (Compl. 15.) In an amended complaint, Sixth & Lenora Apartments asserted claims against Defendant MacDonald-Miller Facility Solutions, Inc., alleging that MacDonald-Miller was retained to install, design, operate, and maintain the plumbing system and did so negligently. (Compl. 17.) MacDonald-Miller is covered by a primary commercial general-liability policy issued by Defendants Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation (collectively, Liberty). (Compl. 18.) Accordingly, Liberty has provided counsel to defend MacDonald-Miller in the underlying state-court action. (Compl. 19.) MacDonald-Miller also holds a professional-liability policy issued by Plaintiff Berkley Assurance Company. (Compl.
8, 10.) The policy contains a choice-of-law provision: “All matters arising from or relating to this Policy, including without limitation questions relating to the validity, interpretation, performance, and enforcement of this Policy…shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of the State of New York (notwithstanding New York’s conflicts of law rules).” (Compl. 13.) The policy also contains a forum-selection clause: “It is agreed that, in the event of any dispute arising from or related to this Policy…[MacDonald-Miller] and [Berkley] will submit to the jurisdiction of any court (State or Federal) in New York and will comply with all the requirements necessary to give such court jurisdiction.” (Compl. 13.) Berkley has issued several letters to MacDonald-Miller advising that it has no duty to defend MacDonald-Miller in the underlying state-court action. (Compl. 20.) On August 15, 2019, Berkley brought this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend MacDonald-Miller in the state-court action. (Compl.
