In Cooper Square Associates LP v.  Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., a decision that was handed down by a New York County trial court on February 9 (and reported in tomorrow’s edition of the New York Law Journal), the plaintiff-landlord contended that since they were named on their tenant’s insurance policy as an additional insured, Atlantic Mutual was obligated to defend them against a personal injury lawsuit that was brought. Atlantic refused to do so on the grounds that there was evidence that the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit was not injured at Cooper Square’s premises.

Citing New York’s long-established precedent that an insurer’s obligation to defend an insured (or, as in this case, an additional insured) is broader than its obligation to indemnify them, the Court stated as follows:

“If the claims asserted, though frivolous, are within the policy coverage, the insurer must defend irrespective of the ultimate liability …  A declaration that an insurer is without obligation to defend a pending action could be made ‘only if it could be concluded as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which [the insurer] might eventually be held to be obligated to indemnify [the insured] under any provision of the insurance policy.’  Servidone Const Corp. v. Security Ins Co of Hartford, 64 NY2d 419, 423-424 (1985).”

Under the circumstances, Atlantic’s refusal to defend Cooper Square was clearly improper, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover from Atlantic the costs it incurred in defending the underlying personal injury action from the date that it tendered its defense of that case to Atlantic.

This case is further proof of why it may pay to fight an insurer’s disclaimer of coverage.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

If you are a Nassau County resident and think back, I’m pretty sure you will remember that torrential storm that occurred back in October of 2005, which resulted in flooding that was referred to as a once-in-a-century type storm. As it was reported on the news, lots of people suffered significant property damage. And the plaintiff in Wilner v. Allstate Ins. Co. was one of these people.

And the plaintiff considered himself lucky when all this transpired, because, after all, he had purchased Allstate’s Deluxe Plus Homeowner’s policy, and figured that his losses would be covered. How wrong he was.

Allstate didn’t even have the decency to formally deny his claim; and, since his insurance policy (like all other Deluxe Plus policy holders) required him to protect Allstate’s interests in recovering compensation for the property damage that may have been caused through the fault of a third party (in this case the Village), he independently hired an attorney, and paid him out of his own pocket, to prosecute the claim in order to assure that the statute of limitations against the Village did not expire.

Reading between the lines of this decision, it is fairly clear to me that the Appellate court, like the trial court before it, found Allstate’s conduct rather troubling, as they both ruled that a jury should be free to consider whether Allstate deliberately withheld its determination on this claim so that the plaintiff (rather than Allstate) would have to bear the cost of hiring an attorney (which otherwise would and/or should have been Allstate’s obligation). If a jury sides with plaintiff on this issue, and finds that Allstate engaged in deceptive business practices (this law is codified at sections 349 and 350 of the General Business Law), Allstate faces the specter of not only compensatory damages for their alleged breach of contract, but also treble and punitive damages as well.

This should prove interesting.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.