You are here: / / INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT...

INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the insurer (Southwest) was entitled to summary judgment declaring it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the insured (Ralex). Ralex had settled the matter without Southwest’s consent:

​

Here, the subject insurance policy Southwest issued to Ralex provided that “[n]o insured will, except at that insured’s own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without [Southwest’s] consent.” Contrary to Ralex’s contention, this provision is not ambiguous. “Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and proper sense” … .

Moreover, “New York law views an insurer’s right to consent to any settlement as a condition precedent to coverage” … . Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Southwest’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), since the documentary evidence it submitted showed that Ralex undertook its own defense in the underlying action, agreed to settle the underlying action, and incurred defense costs without first obtaining Southwest’s consent. By doing so, Ralex breached the insurance contract and is not entitled to coverage … . Ralex Servs., Inc. v Southwest Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 07763, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)
Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall)
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED PETITIONER GUARDIAN OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).
NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S REPEATED FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE CONTINUATION OF HER DEPOSITION WAS WILLFUL, STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

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

ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT... NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, INJURY WAS...