You are here: / / CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S...
,

CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a claim against the bankrupt’s (Daffy’s) insurer is not barred by the insured’s (Daffy’s) discharge in bankruptcy:

​

The court correctly determined that this third-party action against Daffy’s Inc. is not barred by the “Stipulated Order” in Daffy’s bankruptcy proceeding, in which third-party plaintiff [property owner] , waived and released any claims or causes of action relating to or arising under its lease with Daffy’s, and the lease was “rejected and terminated.” The motion papers make it clear that [the property owner] seeks to establish Daffy’s liability in the underlying personal injury action for the sole purpose of recovering under Daffy’s insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. Because the policy would not inure to Daffy’s pecuniary benefit, it was not part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus it is not covered by the Stipulated Order … . Moreover, this Court has recognized that “a claim asserted for the sole purpose of establishing the liability of a party’s insurer is not barred by that party’s discharge in bankruptcy” … . Calleja v AI 229 W. 42nd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00338, First Dept 1-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (INSURANCE LAW, CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING A POLICE VAN.
THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.
No Common Law Negligence Cause of Action to Recover for Injuries Caused by Dog, Even Where Dog Owner May Be Negligent
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE VERSUS CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-RELATOR BROUGHT A QUI TAM ACTION (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT) AGAINST A BANK ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE QUI TAM ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; EVEN THOUGH THE CITY SETTLED WITH THE BANK IN A RELATED ACTION, PLAINTIFF-RELATOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL... PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING...