You are here: / / THE “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A REINSURER...
,

THE “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A REINSURER WHERE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PRIMARY INSURER WERE CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant reinsurer was not required to indemnify the plaintiff primary insurer because the primary insurer was not obligated to make the pay-out under its umbrella policy. The so-called “follow the settlements” doctrine did not apply because the payments made by the plaintiff were clearly beyond the scope of the original policy:

Where it applies, the follow-the-settlements doctrine “ordinarily bars challenge by a reinsurer to the decision of [the cedent] to settle a case for a particular amount” … . Specifically, under that doctrine, “a reinsurer is required to indemnify for payments reasonably within the terms of the original policy, even if technically not covered by it. A reinsurer cannot second guess the good faith liability determinations made by its reinsured . . . The rationale behind this doctrine is two-fold: first, it meets the goal of maximizing coverage and settlement and second, it streamlines the reimbursement process and reduces litigation” …  There are, however, limitations to the doctrine. The follow-the-settlements doctrine “insulates a reinsured’s liability determinations from challenge by a reinsurer unless they are fraudulent, in bad faith, or the payments are clearly beyond the scope of the original policy or in excess of [the reinsurer’s] agreed-to exposure” … . Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Abeille Gen. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03815, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the “follow the settlements” doctrine did not apply to a reinsurer who refused to cover payments made by the primary insurer because those payments were clearly beyond the scope of the original policy.

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON “BLACK ICE” DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE ICE WAS NOT VISIBLE; THIS SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION, THE PARENTS WERE FIT AND THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WEIGHT, INSTEAD FAMILY COURT IGNORED THE PARENTS’ TESTIMONY (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.
Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained
No Requirement that Defendant Submit Affidavit in Support of Suppression Motion; No Requirement Defendant Deny Commission of Charged Offense to Warrant a Hearing on a Suppression Motion
THE TEXTS AND EMAILS WERE NOT SUBSCRIBED; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED UPON THE EMAILS AND TEXTS WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH 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

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT... THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED AND THEREFORE...