You are here: / / No Privity Between Insured and Reinsurers Which Contracted Solely with...
,

No Privity Between Insured and Reinsurers Which Contracted Solely with the Insurer—Counterclaims by Insured Against Reinsurers Should Have Been Dismissed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Freedman, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed counterclaims against reinsurers (NICO and Resolute) by the insured (Colgate) because no contract existed between the reinsurers and the insured. The contractual relationship was solely between the insurer (OneBeacon) and the reinsurers.  Colgate alleged that the actions of NICO and Resolute prevented Colgate from exercising control over lawsuits, including whether to settle or litigate. The underlying lawsuits alleged that talc produced by Colgate contained asbestos:

Colgate’s claims raise the issue of whether an insurance policyholder has rights against its carrier’s reinsurer, if the reinsurer administers the insured’s claims under the policy. In a typical reinsurance arrangement, where the carrier administers claims and the reinsurer merely indemnifies it in accordance with the “follow the fortunes” doctrine (see United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v American Re-Ins. Co., 93 AD3d 14, 23 [1st Dept 2012], mod 20 NY3d 407 [2013]), the insured can only state viable claims against the reinsurer in specific circumstances that do not pertain here. In this case, Colgate only holds the Policies with OneBeacon. The carrier’s reinsurer, NICO, and its affiliate, Resolute, both adjust Colgate’s Policy claims and indemnify OneBeacon for claim payouts. NICO’s and Resolute’s dual role does not, however, give rise to any liability to Colgate because Colgate lacks contractual privity with NICO and Resolute. In the absence of privity, Colgate’s breach of contract claims against NICO and Resolute fail. OneBeacon Am Ins Co v Colgate-Palmolive Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07315, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

You might also like
TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION.
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISMCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN (YEMENI), HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PRIVATE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATED THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THAT ADDRESS; THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 PART I, WHICH IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON A LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO REFUSE TO RENEW A RENT-STABILIZED LEASE, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS HOLDOVER PROCEEDING WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE LAW WAS ENACTED (FIRST DEPT).
WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome
Although the Agreements at Issue Set Up an Investment Fund (Targeting Brazil) in the Cayman Islands, the Fact that the Agreements Were Negotiated, Drafted and Executed in New York Conferred Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Fund
Lawsuit Alleging Lehman Brothers’ Substitution of Toxic Securities for High Value Securities Can Go Forward

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

Revised Retainer Agreement, Which Changed the Fee Arrangement from Hourly to... How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary...