You are here: / / Issuer of Excess Policy Was Required (by the Terms of the Policy) to Pay...
,

Issuer of Excess Policy Was Required (by the Terms of the Policy) to Pay “All Sums,” Including Interest, Over and Above the Policy-Limit Paid Out Under the Primary Policy

In reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined that the issuer of the excess policy (HIC) was obligated to pay all sums, including interest, after the $1,000,000 policy limit was paid out under the primary policy.  The issuer of the primary was insolvent and the $1,000,000 primary policy limit was paid by the liquidator:

Applying the plain meaning of the primary and excess policies to the particular medical malpractice judgment against plaintiff at issue here, it is clear that the primary insurer’s liquidator fulfilled its obligations under the primary policy, thereby triggering HIC’s responsibility to pay the interest in excess of the primary policy’s $1,000,000 liability limit.  Upon entry of the initial judgment against plaintiff, the liquidator paid plaintiff $1,000,000 toward that judgment.  At that point, the liquidator was no longer required to pay interest under the “supplementary payments” provision of the primary policy because that further amount accrued only after the liquidator had already satisfied the liability limit of the primary policy in the manner specified by the “supplementary payments” provision.  Thus, the additional interest on the judgment, as amended, constituted a “sum[ ] in excess of the limits of liability of the Underlying Policy,” which is covered by the excess policy.  Accordingly, HIC had to pay the additional interest.  Ragins… v Hospitals Insurance Company, Inc, 234, CtApp 12-17-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE ARRIVED AT USING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED IN UTERO INJURY FROM GASOLINE FUMES IN CAR MANUFACTURED BY DEFENDANT BMW.
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION OF DRUG POSSESSION; WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT.
Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination of Duration of Disability Given Preclusive Effect in Related Personal Injury Action
Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil
ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP).
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE PEOPLE PROVIDED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK JURORS; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE HANDCUFFED DEFENDANT’S SHOW-UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPER (CT APP).
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP).

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

Police Officers Properly Allowed to Testify About Victim’s Identification... “Equitable Medical Monitoring” Cause of Action Rejected; Plaintiffs, Who...