You are here: / / INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INSURERS IF...

INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INSURERS IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three judge dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division, determined several motions to dismiss in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when a DHL delivery truck driven by an employee of another company crossed the center line, causing a head-on crash. At issue was the reach of Insurance Law 3240 with respect to an insurance policy issued to DHL by AAIC. The appellate division held that Insurance Law 3240 did not allow suit because the policy was not “issued or delivered in this state.” The Court of Appeals held the suit is allowed under Insurance Law 3240 because the insureds and risks are located in New York (two other issues, whether the DHL truck was a “hired auto” and whether it was driven with “permission” are not summarized here):

​

AAIC adopts the Appellate Division’s rationale that because AAIC’s policy was issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and then in Florida, it was neither issued nor delivered in New York, and therefore plaintiff cannot recover from AAIC pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420. …

Insurance Law § 3420 allows a limited cause of action on behalf of injured parties directly against insurers. Section 3420 applies to policies and contracts “issued or delivered in this state” … . Insurance Law § 3420 does not define the term “issued or delivered in this state,” but other provisions of the Insurance Law are instructive: “[T]he proper interpretation of the term ‘issued or delivered in this state’ refers both to a policy issued for delivery in New York, and a policy issued for delivery outside of New York” … . In Preserver, we interpreted section 3420 (d), which then required insurers to provide written notice when disclaiming coverage under policies “issued for delivery” in New York. We held that “[a] policy is ‘issued for delivery’ in New York if it covers both insureds and risks located in this state” (10 NY3d at 642). Thus, under Preserver, “issued for delivery” was interpreted to mean where the risk to be insured was located — not where the policy document itself was actually handed over or mailed to the insured. We interpreted section 3420 to provide a benefit — deliberately in derogation of the common law — to New Yorkers whenever a policy covers “insureds and risks located in this state” … . Applying the Preserver standard to the facts of this case, it is clear that DHL is “located in” New York because it has a substantial business presence and creates risks in New York. It is even clearer that DHL purchased liability insurance covering vehicle-related risks arising from vehicles delivering its packages in New York, because its insurance agreements say so. Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08163, CtApp 11-20-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/INSURANCE LAW 3240  (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE TIMELY INTERPOSED AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (CT APP).
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).
Village’s Unauthorized Use of Dedicated Park Land Prohibited by the “Public Trust Doctrine”—Village’s Use of the Land Was a “Continuing Wrong” Which Tolled the Statute of Limitations and Precluded the Application of the Laches Doctrine
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION OF DRUG POSSESSION; WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT.
Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse Inference Charge
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S NEGOTIATION OF A PLEA DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT, IN RETURN FOR THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ESSENTIAL TESTIMONY IDENTIFYING THE DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS DEPICTED IN A VIDEO, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (CT APP).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS HANDLED PROPERLY, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY OF THE JUROR TO OBTAIN AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD BE FAIR (CT APP).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.

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

ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER... CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL,...