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
EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL, I.E. EVIDENCE OF HABIT, PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THEIR COUNTERCLAIM FOR DEFAMATION, DEFAMATION PER SE AND DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ANONYMOUS TIP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE VEHICLE PURSUED AND STOPPED BY THE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HER DOG COULD ATTACK ANOTHER DOG AND IT WAS FORESEEABLE A DOG OWNER WOULD TRY TO SEPARATE THE DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A NEIGHBOR FOR TRESPASS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW; THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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 © 2026 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...