You are here: / / REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES,...

REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, answered a question from the Second Circuit about how to interpret reinsurance policies. The Court of Appeals held that a 2004 decision by that court did not impose a presumption or rule of construction to be applied to reinsurance policies. Rather each reinsurance policy is to be interpreted using standard contract principles. The underlying issue in the case is whether the cap in a reinsurance policy was limited to the amount of loss, or whether the cap included litigation costs. The opinion includes a clear explanation of the two types of reinsurance policies (not summarized here):

​

… New York law does not impose either a rule, or a presumption, that a limitation on liability clause necessarily caps all obligations owed by a reinsurer, such as defense costs, without regard for the specific language employed therein. Global Reins. Corp. of Am. v Century Indem. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08711, CtApp 12-14-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP))/REINSURANCE (REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP))

You might also like
Proof Requirements for Criminal Enterprise Explained/Sufficiency of Evidence and Weight of Evidence Review Criteria Explained
THE APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; THERE WAS A DEFENSE VERDICT AFTER TRIAL; THE ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFIT CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2014, EVEN IF THE DISABILITY CLAIM FOR THE SAME INJURY HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BEFORE THE CUT-OFF (CT APP).
THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR CAUSING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PEDESTRIAN WHILE FAILING TO EXERCISE DUE CARE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS FIRST RAISED IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SORA CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCE (CT APP).
THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S RESIDENCE WAS “RATIONALLY AND REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PAROLE OFFICER’S DUTY” AND THEREFORE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE WAS PROPER (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS GIVEN NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO TAKE A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WARRANT APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO ASSESS PROBABLE CAUSE; A VIDEO DEPICTING DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
THE DEFENDANT’S MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS 20 YEARS BUT THE JUDGE REPEATEDLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WAS FACING 45 YEARS; THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (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

SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER... PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED...