You are here: / / Analysis Where Two or More Insurance Companies Insure the Same Risk and...

Analysis Where Two or More Insurance Companies Insure the Same Risk and Insured

The Second Department explained the legal analysis when two or more insurance companies cover the same risk for the same insured:

“In insurance contracts the term other insurance’ describes a situation where two or more insurance policies cover the same risk in the name of, or for the benefit of, the same person”… .. “[W]here there are multiple policies covering the same risk, and each generally purports to be excess to the other, the excess coverage clauses are held to cancel out each other and each insurer contributes in proportion to its limit amount of insurance”… . This rule is inapplicable where it “clearly distort[s] the plain meaning of the terms of the policies of insurance”…. “In contrast, however, if one party’s policy is primary with respect to the other policy, then the party issuing the primary policy must pay up to the limits of its policy before the excess coverage becomes effective” … .  Murname Bldg Contrs Inc v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03874, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

You might also like
THE AVAILABILTY OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE DOES NOT SATISFY A FOIL REQUEST; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE VILLAGE SHOULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Prove Shared Intent (Accessorial Liability) Required Dismissal of Robbery Counts Under a Weight of the Evidence Analysis
Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS A DA WHO HAD WORKED ON DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE OF AN IMPLANTED MEDICAL DEVICE WHICH ASSISTS THE HEART WERE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ENGINEERS WHO REPLACED THE LEAD TO THE DEVICE WERE NOT PREEMPTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers Re: a Bench Trial Described
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF STEALING A CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT IN THIS CAR THEFT CASE, KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ACT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor Post-Offense “Bad Acts” Erroneously Admitted (Harmless Error)