You are here: / / THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED...
, ,

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the summary judgment motions brought by three prior insurers of the property contaminated by oil were properly granted. The three insurers, Arch, AAIC and NSC, were third-party defendants in an action for indemnification brought by the current insurer of the property, Utica Mutual. The Arch policy had a specific exclusion of coverage for the contaminant. Arch’s failure to comply with the filing requirement of Insurance Law 2307 did not void the exclusion because there was no evidence Arch violated any regulations or statutes. The actions against AAIC and NSC were properly dismissed because notification of the potential contamination claim by Utica was not made for three years after Utica was aware of the contamination:

… [The] evidence established that the petroleum cleanup and removal costs sought to be recovered by plaintiff arose out of, or were the result of, MTBE contamination at both the spill site and the Honeoye Municipal District Well and, thus, satisfied Arch’s prima facie burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint fell completely within the MTBE exclusion … . …

… Insurance Law § 2307 … states that “no policy form shall be delivered or issued for delivery unless it has been filed with the superintendent [of financial services] and either he [or she] has approved it, or [30] days have elapsed and he [or she] has not disapproved it as misleading or violative of public policy” … . However, as Supreme Court correctly noted, the failure to file under Insurance Law § 2307 “does not, by itself, void the policy clause . . .[; rather,] such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations” … . …

… Utica Mutual failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether it was justifiably ignorant of AAIC’s and NSC’s prior insurance coverage. Indeed, despite having access to Kirkwood and Kirkwood’s records immediately after learning of the contamination and its purported cause, Utica Mutual produced no evidence to show that it made any effort to discover AAIC’s and NSC’s existence before July 2010, when Utica Mutual’s counsel sent a letter to Kirkwood’s former insurance broker seeking information regarding Kirkwood’s prior insurers. Utica Mutual provided no explanation as to why it waited until July 2010 to inquire about prior insurers. State of New York v Flora, 2019 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

You might also like
DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE IF REDACTION CAN ADEQUATLEY PROTECT PRIVACY.
Question of Fact Whether Hospital Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-Employees
A WORKER WHO WAS INJURED IN NEW YORK BUT LIVES IN NEW JERSEY CAN SEEK TREATMENT FROM A NEW JERSEY DOCTOR WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, EVEN IF THE NEW JERSEY PHYSICIAN IS ALSO LICENSED IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE SENTENCING JUDGE’S REMARKS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT MIMICKED 19TH CENTURY POLYGENISM, A DEBUNKED RACIST IDEOLOGY; SENTENCE VACATED AND REDUCED (THIRD DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
Post-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement for Automobile Search Explained
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT INITIALLY BELIEVED THE ROAD WHERE HE STEPPED IN A POTHOLE AND FELL WAS OWNED BY THE VILLAGE, BUT IN FACT IT WAS OWNED BY THE STATE; CLAIMANT’S LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD 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

PETITIONER HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR WITH MOTHER WHO REMAINS MARRIED, PETITION... PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF...