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
A PARTY’S ADMISSION IN AN UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT IS NO LONGER ADMISSIBLE IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT AND DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Meruit
Mother’s Request to Relocate Properly Granted
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN IT, BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the Default Pursuant to CPLR 317

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)