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
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 4213 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).
In an Appeal from an Order Made Upon Appellant’s Default, Only Matters Contested Below Can Be Heard—Here the Only Matter Contested Below Was Appellants’ Request for an Adjournment to Obtain New Counsel—Relevant Review Criteria Explained
WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT
“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)
JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PLAINTIFF WAS STOPPED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS REAR-ENDED BY DEFENDANT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE BEEN STOPPED ON AN ENTRANCE RAMP; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROPERLY SURVIVED DISMSSAL (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 © 2026 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)