You are here: / / No Privity Between Insured and Reinsurers Which Contracted Solely with...
,

No Privity Between Insured and Reinsurers Which Contracted Solely with the Insurer—Counterclaims by Insured Against Reinsurers Should Have Been Dismissed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Freedman, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed counterclaims against reinsurers (NICO and Resolute) by the insured (Colgate) because no contract existed between the reinsurers and the insured. The contractual relationship was solely between the insurer (OneBeacon) and the reinsurers.  Colgate alleged that the actions of NICO and Resolute prevented Colgate from exercising control over lawsuits, including whether to settle or litigate. The underlying lawsuits alleged that talc produced by Colgate contained asbestos:

Colgate’s claims raise the issue of whether an insurance policyholder has rights against its carrier’s reinsurer, if the reinsurer administers the insured’s claims under the policy. In a typical reinsurance arrangement, where the carrier administers claims and the reinsurer merely indemnifies it in accordance with the “follow the fortunes” doctrine (see United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v American Re-Ins. Co., 93 AD3d 14, 23 [1st Dept 2012], mod 20 NY3d 407 [2013]), the insured can only state viable claims against the reinsurer in specific circumstances that do not pertain here. In this case, Colgate only holds the Policies with OneBeacon. The carrier’s reinsurer, NICO, and its affiliate, Resolute, both adjust Colgate’s Policy claims and indemnify OneBeacon for claim payouts. NICO’s and Resolute’s dual role does not, however, give rise to any liability to Colgate because Colgate lacks contractual privity with NICO and Resolute. In the absence of privity, Colgate’s breach of contract claims against NICO and Resolute fail. OneBeacon Am Ins Co v Colgate-Palmolive Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07315, 1st Dept 10-28-14

 

You might also like
ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
Trivial Defect in Sidewalk Not Actionable/First Floor Tenant Abutting Sidewalk Not a Proper Defendant
NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF’S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous Condition
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

Revised Retainer Agreement, Which Changed the Fee Arrangement from Hourly to... How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary...