You are here: / / ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT...
,

ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, re: claims stemming from lead paint exposure, determined the antisubrogation rule did not apply to a party, ANP, which was not covered by the relevant policy:

… [T]he antisubrogation rule is an exception to the right of subrogation … . Under that rule, “an 'insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered . . . even where the insured has expressly agreed to indemnify the party from whom the insurer's rights are derived'” … . In effect, “an insurer may not step into the shoes of its insured to sue a third-party tortfeasor . . . for damages arising from the same risk covered by the policy” … , even where there is an express subrogation agreement … . The two primary purposes of the antisubrogation rule are to avoid “a conflict of interest that would undercut the insurer's incentive to provide an insured with a vigorous defense” and “to prohibit an insurer from passing its loss to its own insured” … .  * * *

The antisubrogation rule … requires a showing that the party the insurer is seeking to enforce its right of subrogation against is its insured, an additional insured, or a party who is intended to be covered by the insurance policy in some other way … . Here, as recognized by the courts below, ANP and its predecessor were not insured under the relevant insurance policies. … Thus, the principal element for application of the antisubrogation rule — that the insurer seeks to enforce its right of subrogation against its own insured, additional insured, or a party intended to be covered by the insurance policy — is absent. Millennium Holdings LLC v Glidden Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 03543, CtApp 5-5-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/SUBROGATION (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/ANITSUBROGATION RULE  (INSURANCE LAW,  ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)

You might also like
A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW COPY NUMBER (LCN) DNA EVIDENCE AND THE EFFICACY OF A FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT TEMPLE AS A “FULL TIME JEWISH EDUCATOR,” WAS FIRED AFTER WRITING A BLOG POST CRITICIZING ISRAEL AND ZIONISM; PLAINTIFF SUED ALLEGING HER FIRING WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW; THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE LABOR-LAW-VIOLATION THEORY FINDING THAT THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ITS MINISTERS (CT APP).
RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE (CT APP).
A DEFENDANT, BY HIS OR HER CONDUCT, CAN FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY 12 JURORS; HERE DEFENDANT APPROACHED THE JURY FOREMAN AT THE FOREMAN’S HOME AND THE FOREMAN WAS DISCHARGED; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED WITH 11 JURORS (CT APP).
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.
Motion for a Change of Venue Can Be Entertained in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Trials and Hearings Under the Mental Hygiene Law/Non-Final Order Which Necessarily Affects the Final Order Is Appealable
THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY REFUSED TO HEAR APPELLANT FATHER’S APPEAL IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING BECAUSE FATHER WAS IN DEFAULT (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT); THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT BECAUSE HE APPEARED BY COUNSEL (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION RELATED TO A THEFT ON OCTOBER 3 AND DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT THEFT ON OCTOBER 1 IN SATISFACTION OF BOTH, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF REVIEW REVERSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT;... STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW.