You are here: / / INSURERS’ RESPONSES TO INSUREDS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE INSURANCE...

INSURERS’ RESPONSES TO INSUREDS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE INSURANCE CONTRACTS AMOUNTED TO A DENIAL OF LIABILITY, INSUREDS NOT OBLIGATED TO COOPERATE OR OBTAIN CONSENT TO SETTLE. ​

The First Department determined the insurer’s responses to the insureds’ claims amounted to a denial of coverage. Therefore the insureds were not obligated to cooperate with the insurers or obtain the insurers’ consent to settle:

Defendants’ [insurers’] unreasonable delay in dealing with plaintiffs’ claims under the insurance contracts, consistently stated position that the various regulatory investigations and civil actions concerning plaintiffs’ alleged late trading and marketing-timing transactions did not constitute claims under the contracts, and insistence that in any event disgorgement payments such as those demanded by the regulators were not insurable as a matter of law constitute a denial of liability under the contracts that justifies plaintiffs’ settlement of those claims without defendants’ consent… . The record does not support defendants’ contention that plaintiffs breached their obligation to cooperate, but in any event defendants’ repudiation of liability for plaintiffs’ claims also excuses plaintiffs from performance of that obligation … . The “reservation of rights” language in defendants’ letters to plaintiffs does not change this result … .  J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05181, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

You might also like
A PLAINTIFF CAN USE THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS CLAUSE” IN CPLR 205(A) MORE THAN ONCE; WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD DOESN’T START TO RUN UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1); THE ARTICULATING LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WHICH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest
Documentary Evidence Can Be Considered In CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion to Dismiss/Disclaimer Not Specific Enough to Preclude Fraud Cause of Action
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT INCLUDED OFFENSES FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT HELD FOR GRAND JURY ACTION (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

THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED... MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...