You are here: / / Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals held that “when a liability insurer has breached its duty to defend its insured, the insurer may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him.”  The Court wrote:

…”[A]n insurance company that has disclaimed its duty to defend “may litigate only the validity of its disclaimer.” If the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would otherwise have negated the duty to indemnify. This rule will give insurers an incentive to defend the cases they are bound by law to defend, and thus to give insureds the full benefit of their bargain. It would be unfair to insureds, and would promote unnecessary and wasteful litigation, if an insurer, having wrongfully abandoned its insured’s defense, could then require the insured to litigate the effect of policy exclusions on the duty to indemnify.  K2 Investment Group, LLC v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, No 106, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
WHEN A DEFENDANT MUST BE RELEASED BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH A BAIL-ELIGIBLE OFFENSE, A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION MUST BE CONDUCTED AS AN OUT-PATIENT OR IN A HOSPITAL; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE ORDERED TO JAIL PENDING THE EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (CT APP). ​
THE PEBBLES ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE” AND A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MECHANICS OF THE 30-DAY COURT-OF-APPEALS “APPEAL CLOCK” EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRONIC FILING (CT APP).
LEAD AGENCY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT LEAD DUST AND NOISE CONCERNS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION NEAR A SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY AND, AFTER IMPOSING MITIGATION MEASURES, PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION (CT APP).
THE STATUTORY TIMELY-DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE RISK RETENTION GROUPS (RRG’S), DEFENDANT RRG, WHICH DID NOT ISSUE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, IS NOT BARRED FROM PRESENTING DEFENSES TO COVERAGE (CT APP).
The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing
NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Had the Authority to Enter a 10-Year Exclusive Agreement with Nissan for the Production of the “Taxi of Tomorrow (T o T),” NYC’s Official Taxicab
Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different Victims Named
DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.

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

Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should... Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Revers...