You are here: / / Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals held that “when a liability insurer has breached its duty to defend its insured, the insurer may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him.”  The Court wrote:

…”[A]n insurance company that has disclaimed its duty to defend “may litigate only the validity of its disclaimer.” If the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would otherwise have negated the duty to indemnify. This rule will give insurers an incentive to defend the cases they are bound by law to defend, and thus to give insureds the full benefit of their bargain. It would be unfair to insureds, and would promote unnecessary and wasteful litigation, if an insurer, having wrongfully abandoned its insured’s defense, could then require the insured to litigate the effect of policy exclusions on the duty to indemnify.  K2 Investment Group, LLC v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, No 106, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
THE COUNTY HAD IN REM JURISDICTION IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AND MADE ADEQUATE ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY THE NECESSARY PARTIES (CT APP).
IN THIS SUIT BY YELLOW CAB MEDALLION OWNERS AGAINST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH OR DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES; PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WERE BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO REGULATE COMPETING SERVICES LIKE UBER AND LYFT (CT APP).
Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated
WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP). ​
Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained
HAPPY, AN ELEPHANT IN THE BRONX ZOO, IS NOT A “PERSON” ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HAPPY’S TRANSFER TO AN ELEPHANT SANCTUARY; TWO DISSENTS (CT APP).
Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large
Department of Corrections Has Right to Force-Feed Inmate on Hunger Strike

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

Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should... Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Revers...