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
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS PRETEXTUAL, OSTENSIBLY BASED ON A BURNED-OUT LICENSE-PLATE LIGHT; BUT THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE CANINE SNIFF BASED UPON A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS BEYOND REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP).
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).
THE USE OF TRANSLATORS TO DOCUMENT INFORMATION IN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DID NOT RENDER THE INSTRUMENTS FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT BY ADDING A LAYER OF HEARSAY (CT APP). ​
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED THE COLLATERAL SUPPORTING A POSTED BAIL BOND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THE ACCUSED’S RETURN TO COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference
Question of Fact Raised by Verified Pleadings Re When Accident Happened

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...