You are here: / / WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK,...
,

WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE EXCESS COVERAGE CLAUSES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, explained how multiple “excess coverage” insurance policies should be applied:

“[W]here there are multiple policies covering the same risk, and each generally purports to be excess to the other, the excess coverage clauses are held to cancel out each other and each insurer contributes in proportion to its [policy] limit,” unless to do so would distort the plain meaning of the policies … . By contrast, “if one party’s policy is primary with respect to the other policy, then the party issuing the primary policy must pay up to the limits of its policy before the excess coverage becomes effective”  … . Kolli v Kaleida Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 03998, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The excess coverage clauses in multiple excess coverage policies covering the same risk cancel each other out.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN COLLISION WITH DRIVER WHO FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) CONDITIONS WERE VIOLATED, THE VIOLATIONS PERTAINED TO DRUG USE, NOT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT’S COCAINE USE TO SEXUAL AROUSAL WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CIVIL COMMITMENT.
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR A STIGMA-PLUS 43 USC 1983 VIOLATION AND DEFAMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED UPON A STATEMENT BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF DISREGARDING COVID POLICY AND ENDANGERING STUDENTS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER ECONOMIC HARM AND THE STATEMENT WAS PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).
Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction Under an “Acting in Concert” or “Accomplice” Theory Reversed
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR PRESS RELEASE ABOUT TATOO-RELATED INFECTIONS, PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE MALICE.
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROPERTY-INSURANCE EXCLUSION FOR “DETERIORATION” APPLIED TO THE BULGING WALL CAUSED BY THE DETERIORATION OF BRICKS, PRECLUDING COVERAGE (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

DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING... WHETHER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) REVIVES OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED WORKERS’...