You are here: / / SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL...

SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL OF COVERAGE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE INSURER, THE ACTIONS AGAINST THE INSURANCE BROKERS, ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROCURE THE REQUESTED INSURANCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant insurance brokers’ (Praxis and HUB) motion to dismiss should not have been granted. Plaintiff settled with the insurer (Affiliated) on its breach of contract claim (which alleged the claim was wrongly denied). Plaintiff’s actions against the brokers alleged failure to procure the requested coverage:

… [T]he validity of Affiliated’s denial of the plaintiffs’ claim for property damage remains undecided, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs settled this action with respect to Affiliated … . The complaint alleges that the denial was based on actions taken by Praxis and the HUB defendants. Should the plaintiffs prevail on their causes of action against Praxis and the HUB defendants, any damages they recover must necessarily be reduced by the amount of the settlement from Affiliated, in order to avoid a double recovery … . Prime Alliance Group, Ltd. v Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01630, Second Dept 3-14-18

INSURANCE LAW (SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL OF COVERAGE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE INSURER, THE ACTIONS AGAINST THE INSURANCE BROKERS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROCURE THE REQUESTED INSURANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BROKERS (INSURANCE) (FAILURE TO PROCURE REQUESTED COVERAGE, SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL OF COVERAGE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE INSURER, THE ACTIONS AGAINST THE INSURANCE BROKERS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROCURE THE REQUESTED INSURANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED TWO DAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR-NINETY-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN THE FILING AND THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE MUNICIPALITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE ORIGINAL BORROWERS AGAINST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED, CIVIL CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).
Injury to Real Property, Waste, Trespass, Conversion and Private Nuisance Actions Based Upon Removal of Trees from Unrecorded Easement
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (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

LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM...