Insurance Law – Page 32 – New York Appellate Digest

THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the umbrella policy had been cancelled for non-payment just hours before plaintiff (Garcia) was struck by the car owned by the insured, Rakowski. The Second Department rejected the argument that the insurance contract was divisible. The GEICO policy in effect was a $2,000,000 umbrella policy which represented an increase from a prior $1,000,000 policy. The additional premium ($199) for the $2,000,000 policy had not been paid, but the premium in an amount equal to the premium for the prior $1,000,000 policy ($306) had been paid. The Second Department held that the $1,000,000 coverage was no longer available. Only the $2,000,000 policy was in effect, and that was cancelled for failure to pay the additional $199 premium:

Garcia argues, and our dissenting colleagues would conclude, that, because of how the premiums were set out in the Amended Declarations, there is an ambiguity as to whether Rakowski received a policy for $2,000,000 or $1,000,000, or as to whether the policy was divisible or severable as to the amount of coverage. We disagree. The fact that the premium was separately stated for the increase in the coverage limit is irrelevant here. The $1,000,000 renewal proposal of the policy from the previous year had already been sent out before Rakowski asked for an increase in the amount of coverage to $2,000,000. The “Amended Declarations,” which, by their terms, “SUPERSEDE[D] ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION” for the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, were sent to Rakowski after she asked for the changes to her policy. Thus, the additional billing, which separated the original premium from the amount attributable to the increase, was unremarkable and did not give rise to an ambiguity in the policy that Rakowski had asked for and GEICO agreed to provide: a liability limit of $2,000,000 as of the beginning of the new policy period. Garcia is not seeking to divide Rakowski’s policy, but, in effect, to rewrite it to provide what Rakowski never asked for: a policy with coverage of only $1,000,000.

As Garcia points out, forfeiture is not favored in the law… , and, where cancellation of an entire policy would result in forfeiture, courts may be reluctant to hold that an insurance contract is not divisible … . There is, however, no forfeiture here. Rakowski asked for, and received, a $2,000,000 policy, and she had $2,000,000 in coverage from the outset of the policy period, October 10, 2005. Because she only paid part of the premium, her coverage was cancelled, upon notice, when the prorated premium for the coverage she contracted for was exhausted. In other words, Rakowski got everything she paid for, and she forfeited nothing. That Rakowski “just missed” being insured for the injuries caused to Garcia is unfortunate, but nonetheless irrelevant to this analysis. GEICO sent its cancellation notice more than six months before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia. We are not free to alter the meaning of the policy to avoid the result caused by Rakowski’s nonpayment of the premium for her $2,000,000 policy … . Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05202, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

June 28, 2017

Insurance Law

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

June 27, 2017

BAIL BONDSMAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP THE PREMIUM POSTED TO UNDERWRITE A BAIL BOND IF BAIL IS SUBSEQUENTLY DISAPPROVED AND THE ARRESTEE IS NOT RELEASED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined the defendant bail bondsman, Judelson, who agreed to underwrite a $2 million bail bond in return for a premium of $120,560, could not keep the premium when bail was disapproved and the arrestee, Bogoraz, was not released. The bond was posted, but bail was disapproved at the subsequent hearing:

The question before us ultimately turns on when a “premium” is earned. The use of the word “premium” in [Insurance Law] section 6804 (a) is significant because that term connotes a consideration paid to an insurer for assuming a risk … . Risk, when used “with reference to insurance, describes the liability assumed as specified on the face of the policy” … . Notably, in 1997, when the legislature amended section 6804 to increase premium rates to sureties, the sponsor justified the change as providing “an incentive to assume more risk by bonding agents” … .

When does a bail bond surety incur risk? In our view, the risk associated with the bail bond is that the principal admitted on bail will fail to appear and the bail bond will be forfeited … . If the posted collateral does not cover the bail bond, the surety may suffer a financial loss. The surety does not incur this risk when the principal is not released and so has no opportunity to jump bail … . While the surety assumes a binding obligation to pay the bail upon posting the bail bond, no risk attaches from this obligation alone. Risk is triggered only when the court takes additional steps following the posting — approving the bail bond and issuing a certificate authorizing the principal’s release … . When a hearing is ordered under CPL 520.30, the court approves or disapproves the bail bond after the hearing … . If the court disapproves the bail bond, the surety never runs the risk it contracted to insure. Gevorkyan v Judelson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05176, CtApp 6-27-17

June 27, 2017

Environmental Law, Insurance Law, Toxic Torts

DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED.

The First Department, in an action seeking reimbursement for environmental cleanup costs, determined the policy exclusion from coverage of lead emissions controlled, even though the soil was also contaminated with lead paint, which was not excluded from coverage:

In this case, not only did the damage result from different sources, i.e., lead emissions and lead paint, but, also, one source is excluded from coverage and the other is not. However, the damage resulting from either source is not readily divisible from the damage resulting from the other. The combined effect of the lead emissions and the lead paint was soil contamination – of the same soil. To the extent a particular area was contaminated solely by lead paint, it was not (and could not have been) included in the EPA’s remediation efforts (see 42 USC § 9604). Moreover, claimant would not have had to pay for any damage – including lead paint damage – if not for the accompanying pollution (see 42 USC § 9607). Thus, the entire claim is barred by the pollution exclusions. Matter of Midland Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05171, 1st Dept 6-22-17

INSURANCE LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (INSURANCE, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)POLLUTION EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE, DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED)

June 22, 2017

Insurance Law

POST-DEATH INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012).

The Second Department interpreted an ambiguous term in an Insurance Law statute to determine the appropriate post-death interest to be paid on an annuity. The interest rate at the time of payment should not be applied to entire period between the death of the annuitant (1998) and the date of payment (2012). Rather, the historical interest rates during that time should be applied:

On or about November 8, 2012, TFLIC [defendant insurer] sent the plaintiff a check for $142,163.54, representing the value of Annuity #8231 on the date of … death ($132,071.06), plus $10,092.48 in interest, calculated at an annual rate of 0.5%. The estate accepted the payment “without waiving any rights that [the plaintiff] may have to interest since the date of death, costs and expenses resulting from your failure to provide this annuity upon the decedent’s death.” The estate later commenced this action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, breach of contract for the delay in paying the proceeds of Annuity #8231, and demanding, inter alia, prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 9% (see CPLR 5004). …

… [T]he calculation of interest on the proceeds due under Annuity #8231 must be determined in accordance with the principles set forth in Insurance Law § 3214, which applies specifically to interest paid on the proceeds of an annuity following the death of the annuitant. …

The Supreme Court erred … in determining that the rate of interest due on the proceeds of Annuity #8231 pursuant to Insurance Law § 3214(c) should be determined solely by reference to the rate in effect at the time of payment—in this case, 0.5%.

Insurance Law § 3214(c), entitled “Interest upon proceeds of life insurance policies and annuity contracts,” provides, in relevant part, that, “interest upon the principal sum paid to the beneficiary . . . shall be computed daily at the rate of interest currently paid by the insurer on proceeds left under the interest settlement option, from the date of the death of an . . . annuitant in connection with a death claim on such a . . . contract of annuity . . . to the date of payment and shall be added to and be a part of the total sum paid.” … [T]he word “currently” is ambiguous, as it could refer to the rate in effect on each date on which a daily computation must be made. Conversely, it could refer to the rate in effect on the date of payment.

” Where the language of a statute is susceptible of two constructions, the courts will adopt that which avoids injustice, hardship, constitutional doubts or other objectionable results'”… . Applying this principle here, the calculation of interest under section 3214(c) should reflect the rates applied by the insurer in the normal course of managing its funds held on deposit, rather than arbitrarily determining the entire interest payment based on the happenstance of the interest rate in effect on the date of payment … . …

Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied to both parties in this case, as the record presents unresolved issues of fact regarding the historical interest rates used by TFLIC and its predecessor, TLICNY, between 1998 (the year of …. death) and 2012 (the year on which the proceeds of Annuity #8231 were paid). Fleischman v Transamerica Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 05068, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

INSURANCE LAW (ANNUITIES, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012))/ANNUITIES (INSURANCE LAW, INTEREST, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE LIFE OF THE ANNUITY)/INTEREST (ANNUITIES, INSURANCE LAW, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012)))

June 21, 2017

Attorneys, Insurance Law, Labor Law-Construction Law, Workers' Compensation

INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff’s insurer (RLI), which opted not to defend this construction accident case, was required to indemnify the insurers who paid the $2.5 million settlement, both for the damages and the excess attorney’s fees. The plaintiff opted to hire a law firm other that the firm used by the workers’ compensation carrier (SLI). The workers’ compensation carrier paid $150/hour toward the other attorneys’ fees. The firm hired by plaintiff (Greenberg Traurig) charged $795/hr. The dissent argued the fees should have been capped at $150/hr. The other issue addressed by the court was the late notification of plaintiff’s insurer. The late notice was excused because of a good faith belief recovery was limited to workers’ compensation (and therefore subject to a policy exclusion):

RLI’s argument that the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of amounts paid to Greenberg Traurig in defense of the underlying claim is without merit. Having chosen to deny coverage and not participate in the defense, RLI “excluded itself from any aspect of the [p]laintiff’s defense in the Vasquez estate’s action,” including the negotiation of attorneys’ fees and the selection of attorneys, as so found by the motion court, and cannot now be heard to complain. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the underlying action as “damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” by RLI of the contract of insurance … .

We reject defendant’s argument that the $150 per hour contributed by SIF acts as a ceiling on fees … . Any agreement between SIF and plaintiff as to fees has no bearing on RLI’s responsibility to provide a defense, save as it pertains to any eventual allocation of defense costs as between the two carriers … . The record does not contain a copy of the SIF policy, so we are unable to make any determination as to whether the carriers share the costs of defense in equal parts as primary carriers, or whether defendant RLI is solely responsible. It may be noted that under RLI’s policy, competing primary insurers are to contribute on an equal basis. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v RLI Ins. Co., 20 17 NY Slip Op 04776, 1st Dept 6-13-17

INSURANCE LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))

June 13, 2017

Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Labor Law-Construction Law

ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.

The First Department, over a detailed dissent which lays out the complicated facts, affirming Supreme Court (Reed, J.), determined the action by insurer’s subrogee (Nationwide) against the insured’s subrogee (US Underwriters) in this Labor Law (construction accident) action was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. The underlying action had settled for about $1.55 million.

FROM THE DISSENT (THE FACTS):

On or about July 9, 2001, Kerwin Park, an employee of Armadillo Construction Corp., a demolition contractor, sustained personal injuries while working on a construction site. Park commenced the underlying Labor Law action against the general contractor (Artimus) and others. Nationwide, Artimus’s insurer, tendered the defense of the action to Armadillo and Armadillo’s insurer, U.S. Underwriters; Artimus was an additional insured on the U.S. Underwriters policy. By letter dated August 31, 2001, U.S. Underwriters denied coverage to Artimus, copying the broker and Armadillo on the letter, based on late notice of occurrence and various exclusions in the policy. …[T]he underlying action settled for approximately $1.55 million. Nationwide contributed to the settlement on Artimus’s behalf. Artimus also obtained a default judgment on its third-party indemnification claim against Armadillo. … Artimus moved to restore its claims against Armadillo to the active calendar in the declaratory judgment action. In granting the motion, the court (Ramos, J.) cited to Justice Cahn’s earlier decision in the action and observed that no decision had been made concerning Armadillo’s entitlement to coverage. * * * Justice Reed granted U.S. Underwriters’ motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that Artimus, as Armadillo’s subrogee, was collaterally estopped from bringing the instant action, because it was in privity with Armadillo, and whatever rules of collateral estoppel applied to Armadillo would also apply to Artimus (and its subrogee, Nationwide). The court found that as a consequence, Artimus was bound by Justice Cahn’s order. The court also found that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

FROM THE MAJORITY:

… [T]he parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the insurance coverage issues in the prior action. Nationwide is therefore collaterally estopped from litigating the same issues already decided against its subrogor, Artimus, who in turn is estopped from litigating the same issues decided against its subrogor, Armadillo, as a subrogee of the insured.

Moreover, the principles of res judicata favor defendants herein. Nationwide and Artimus seek to enforce the judgment that they were awarded against Armadillo in the third-party personal injury action. However … in the prior action the court found that the coverage exclusion with respect to the personal injury action in U.S. Underwriters policy was applicable. By bringing this action as subrogees of Artimus and Armadillo under Insurance Law § 3420, Nationwide and Artimus are essentially seeking to relitigate Artimus’s claims for coverage. “Res judicata is designed to provide finality in the resolution of disputes, recognizing that [c]onsiderations of judicial economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation” … . Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04774, 1st Dept 6-13-17

INSURANCE LAW (ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/RES JUDICATA (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/PRIVITY (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)

June 13, 2017

Insurance Law, Toxic Torts

INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant insurance company had a duty to defend in this toxic tort case brought by residents in the vicinity of plaintiff business (Hillcrest) which allegedly contaminated the area with hazardous materials. Although the policy excluded coverage for damages caused by hazardous material, the complaint also alleged Hillcrest caused a “malodorous condition” which, the court reasoned, was not necessarily related to hazardous materials:

It is well settled that an insurance company’s duty to defend is ” exceedingly broad,’ ” and is broader than the duty to indemnify … . The duty to defend arises whenever allegations of an underlying complaint suggest ” a reasonable possibility of coverage,’ ” even if facts outside the pleadings ” indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered’ ” … . “[U]pon a motion such as this[,] the court’s duty is to compare the allegations of the complaint to the terms of the policy to determine whether a duty to defend exists” … .

Moreover, “exclusions are subject to strict construction and must be read narrowly” … . “In order to establish that an exclusion defeats coverage, the insurer has the heavy burden’ of establishing that the exclusion is expressed in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and is applicable to the facts” … .

Here, liberally construing the allegations set forth in the second amended complaint in the underlying action … , we conclude that there is a reasonable possibility of coverage, and that defendant therefore did not meet its heavy burden of establishing as a matter of law that the hazardous materials exclusion precludes coverage. The tort plaintiffs alleged in the second amended complaint that the Hillcrest plaintiffs’ operation of the facility “caused a malodorous condition to be created in the surrounding neighborhood.” Although many of the factual assertions in the second amended complaint allege that the odor resulted from hazardous materials, those are not the only factual allegations therein. Indeed, foul odors are not always caused by the discharge of hazardous materials. Inasmuch as there is a reasonable possibility of coverage, the court properly declared that defendant is obligated to defend the Hillcrest plaintiffs in the underlying tort action and ordered defendant to reimburse them for the cost of the defense. Hillcrest Coatings, Inc. v Colony Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04613, 4th Dept 6-9-17

INSURANCE LAW (TOXIC TORTS, DUTY TO DEFEND, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS)/TOXIC TORTS (INSURANCE LAW, DUTY TO DEFEND, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, TOXIC TORTS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS)

June 9, 2017

Arbitration, Insurance Law

INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the motion for a stay of arbitration brought by the insurer (petitioner) in this underinsured motorist benefits action, although untimely under the CPLR, should not have been dismissed on that ground. Respondent had waived arbitration by instigating litigation so the time restrictions on a motion to stay did not apply (even though the insurer had participated in the arbitration):

Petitioner seeks to permanently stay an underinsured motorist benefits arbitration proceeding brought by respondent in New York.

The motion court erred in dismissing the motion to stay as untimely. The time restrictions set forth at CPLR 7503(c) do not apply where, as here, respondent waived her right to arbitrate by initiating litigation on the same claims … . “[O]nce waived, the right to arbitrate cannot be regained, even by the respondent’s failure to [timely] seek a stay of arbitration” … .

That petitioner participated, under objection, in the arbitration is immaterial. Even if the arbitration had been completed and an award issued, the award would be subject to vacatur on the ground that the arbitrator lacked authority to conduct the arbitration … . Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Howell, 2017 NY Slip Op 04406, 1st Dept 6-6-17

ARBITRATION (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY)/INSURANCE LAW (ARBITRATION, INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY)

June 6, 2017

Insurance Law, Negligence

POLICY LANGUAGE MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT COVERAGE OF ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IS TRIGGERED ONLY WHEN THE INSURED IS NEGLIGENT, NOT MERELY WHEN THE ACTIONS OF THE INSURED HAVE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INJURY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissenting opinion authored by Judge Fahey, reversing the appellate division, determined the language of the personal injury insurance policy did not support coverage of the additional insureds. The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) had contracted with BSI for construction work on a subway tunnel. BSI took out an insurance policy from Burlington. NYCTA, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and New York City were named as additional insureds. An NYCTA employee was injured when a machine operated by BSI struck a live electric cable buried in concrete. The NYCTA had neglected to mark the location of the cable and turn off the power. The question before the court was whether, pursuant to the policy language, the additional insureds were covered when the insured, BSI, was not negligent, or whether the causal relationship between BSI and the accident triggered coverage of the additional insureds:

It is well established in our law that “but for” causation, or causation in fact, is “[t]he cause without which the event could not have occurred” … . The term refers to a link in the chain leading to an outcome, and in the abstract does no more than state the obvious, that “any given event, including an injury, is always the result of many causes” … . However, not all “but for” causes result in liability and “[m]ost causes can be ignored in tort litigation” … . In contrast, “proximate cause” refers to a “legal cause” to which the Court has assigned liability … . The dissent suggests that “proximate cause” and “but-for cause” may be equivalent concepts (dissenting op at 14), but the law is clear that the two are not synonymous … . As the Court has explained, “‘because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point'”… .

Here, the Burlington policy endorsement states that the injury must be “caused, in whole or in part” by BSI. These words require proximate causation since “but for” causation cannot be partial. An event may not be wholly or partially connected to a result, it either is or it is not connected. Stated differently, although there may be more than one proximate cause, all “but for” causes bear some connection to the outcome even if all do not lead to legal liability. Thus, these words — “in whole or in part” — can only modify “proximate cause” … . Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04384, CtApp 6-6-17

INSURANCE LAW (POLICY LANGUAGE MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT COVERAGE OF ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IS TRIGGERED ONLY WHEN THE INSURED IS NEGLIGENT, NOT MERELY WHEN THE ACTIONS OF THE INSURED HAVE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INJURY)/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, POLICY LANGUAGE MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT COVERAGE OF ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IS TRIGGERED ONLY WHEN THE INSURED IS NEGLIGENT, NOT MERELY WHEN THE ACTIONS OF THE INSURED HAVE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INJURY)