You are here: / / INSURED NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION...
,

INSURED NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE THE INSURED’S RIGHTS UNDER THE POLICY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff (the insured) was not entitled to attorney’s fees in an action brought to settle its rights under a policy:

This case is governed by the general rule that attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses are “incidents of litigation” that the prevailing party may not collect “from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule” … . Indeed, it is well established that “an insured may not recover the expenses incurred in bringing an affirmative action against an insurer to settle its rights under the policy” … . Here, there is nothing in the insurance policy that obligates defendant to reimburse or indemnify plaintiff for attorneys’ fees incurred by it in prosecuting an action to enforce the property coverage provisions of the policy, nor does plaintiff refer to any statute or a court rule authorizing its recovery of attorneys’ fees from defendant. Zelasko Constr., Inc. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06328, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

You might also like
PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING A POLICE OFFICER TO COURT TO TESTIFY AT A PRETRIAL HEARING; THE 33-DAY DELAY WAS UNREASONABLE AND CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
Teacher’s Subpoena for School Records of a Student Who Testified at the Teacher’s Education Law 3020-a Proceeding Should Have Been Quashed
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
Unlawful Imprisonment Charge Merged With Assault Charge

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

ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED... TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER...