OPINION & ORDER Michael and Yvadne Bradley (“Michael” and “Yvadne,” respectively; collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this Action alleging breach of contract against Markel Service, Inc. (“Markel”), Evanston Insurance Co. (“Evanston”), and Essex Insurance Co. (“Essex,” and collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-1).)1 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss. (Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 26).) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion is granted. I. Background A. Materials Considered As a threshold matter, the Court must decide what documents it may consider in deciding the instant Motion. Defendants argue that the Court may take into consideration several documents that Plaintiffs relied upon in filing their Complaint in this Action. (Defs’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. To Dismiss (“Defs’ Mem.”) 11-12 (Dkt. No. 28); see also Decl. of April T. Villaverde, Esq. (“Villaverde Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 27).) Plaintiffs have also attached several documents to their opposition papers to which they refer. (Pls’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Mot. To Dismiss (“Pl’s Opp’n”) (Dkt. No. 29); see also Decl. of Edmond Chakmakian (“Chakmakian Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 30).) Generally, “[w]hen considering a motion to dismiss, the Court’s review is confined to the pleadings themselves,” because “[t]o go beyond the allegations in the Complaint would convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment pursuant to [Rule] 56.” Thomas v. Westchester Cnty. Health Care Corp., 232 F. Supp. 2d 273, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “Nevertheless, the Court’s consideration of documents attached to, or incorporated by reference in the Complaint, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken, would not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Id.; see also Bellin v. Zucker, 6 F.4th 463, 473 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining that “when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,” courts may “consider the complaint in its entirety…, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice” (quotation marks omitted)); Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider ‘only the facts alleged in the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.’” (alteration omitted) (quoting Samuels v. Air Transp. Loc. 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1993))). Defendants have submitted the following documents in support of their Motion: 1. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in Michael and Yvadne Bradley v. Vapor Lounge LLC and “XYZ Corp.”, Index No. EF011800-2018 (Sup. Ct., Orange Cnty. Dec. 3, 2018) (the “State Complaint” from the “underlying action”), (Villaverde Decl. Ex. 2 (“State Compl.”) (Dkt. No. 27-2)); 2. An insurance policy, policy number 2CT1387, issued to Vapor Lounge, LLC (“Vapor Lounge”) and in effect from May 7, 2015 to May 7, 2016 (the “Policy”), (id. Ex. 1 (“Policy”) (Dkt. No. 27-1)); 3. A letter, dated March 7, 2016 from Essex to Vapor Lounge, (id. Ex. 3 (Dkt. No. 27-3)); 4. A letter, dated December 26, 2018, from Evanston to Vapor Lounge, (id. Ex. 4 (Dkt. No. 27-4)); 5. A letter, dated November 25, 2019, from Evanston to Vapor Lounge, (id. Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 27-5)); 6. A letter, dated May 20, 2022, from Evanston to Plaintiffs, (id. Ex. 6 (Dkt. No. 27-6).) The Court may take judicial notice of the State Complaint, albeit it for a limited purpose, because it is a document filed before another court. See, e.g., Kalra v. Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C., No. 20-CV-1393, 2022 WL 788507, at *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2022) (noting that “[a] court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings” (quoting Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 425 (2d Cir. 2008))). Additionally, the Court may consider the Policy and the four letters because courts in the Second Circuit routinely consider the underlying insurance policy and any denial letters when adjudicating an alleged insurance contract breach, as the cause of action necessarily relies heavily on the policy’s terms and effect. See, e.g., LM Ins. Corp. v. James River Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-7472, 2023 WL 5509264, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2023) (holding that insurance policy and denial letter were integral to complaint alleging breach of the policy); J.A.V. Petroleum Inc. v. Norguard Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-5107, 2018 WL 10676901, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2018) (finding policy and denial letters were integral to complaint alleging breach of the policy); Mears v. Allstate Indem. Co., 336 F. Supp. 3d 141, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (same). Plaintiffs have attached the following documents in opposition to Defendants’ Motion: (1) a copy of a so-ordered stipulation entered in the underlying action (the “Stipulation”), (Chakmakian Decl. Ex. A (“Stip.”) (Dkt. No. 30-1)), and (2) a copy of an exemplar warning, (Chakmakian Decl. Ex. C (Dkt. No. 30-3)). The Court will take judicial notice of the Stipulation because it is a record of a filing in another court. See Kalra, 2022 WL 788507, at *2. Plaintiff has not provided any basis for the Court to consider the exemplar warning, and the Court thus declines to consider it. B. Factual Background The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ Complaint and are assumed to be true for the purposes of ruling on the instant Motion. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Michael and Yvadne live in Warwick, New York. (Compl.
1-2.) At some point, Michael purchased an electronic cigarette from Vapor Lounge. (Id.
