You are here: / / CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S...
,

CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a claim against the bankrupt’s (Daffy’s) insurer is not barred by the insured’s (Daffy’s) discharge in bankruptcy:

​

The court correctly determined that this third-party action against Daffy’s Inc. is not barred by the “Stipulated Order” in Daffy’s bankruptcy proceeding, in which third-party plaintiff [property owner] , waived and released any claims or causes of action relating to or arising under its lease with Daffy’s, and the lease was “rejected and terminated.” The motion papers make it clear that [the property owner] seeks to establish Daffy’s liability in the underlying personal injury action for the sole purpose of recovering under Daffy’s insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. Because the policy would not inure to Daffy’s pecuniary benefit, it was not part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus it is not covered by the Stipulated Order … . Moreover, this Court has recognized that “a claim asserted for the sole purpose of establishing the liability of a party’s insurer is not barred by that party’s discharge in bankruptcy” … . Calleja v AI 229 W. 42nd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00338, First Dept 1-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (INSURANCE LAW, CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN EYEWITNESS, SAW A FIREARM, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Had the Authority to Mandate the Use of a Particular Vehicle as a NYC Taxi
IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Fell from Temporary Staircase Which Was Wet from Rain
SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).
In a Slip and Fall Case, the Flawed Constructive-Notice Jury Instruction Required Reversal of the Verdict (Plaintiff Had Won) and a New Trial on Liability

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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL... PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING...