Welcome to the Lewis Johs Insurance Coverage blog, a blog devoted to insurance coverage issues arising under New York Law and addressed by the appellate and trial courts, as well as federal courts interpreting New York Law.
In a case I have been involved with for many years, Commercial Insurance Company v. Popadich, the First Department today affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County, which determined that our client, Commercial Insurance, had no obligation to defend or indemnify their insured, Ronald Popadich, based upon the intentional nature of his conduct. Popadich had gone on a murderous rampage in New York City with his vehicle, killing one pedestrian and injuring several others.
On November 18, 2009 Governor Patterson signed into law legislation which abrogates the right of a private insurer to subrogate against a settling defendant or plaintiff in a personal injury or wrongful death action. It will apply to all actions filed after November 18, 2009 and to all pending actions where there has been no trial or settlement.
American Transit Ins. Co. v. Brown, 2009 Slip Opinion 07207 (1st Dept. 2009) involved satisfaction of a default judgment obtained by defendant Brown against American Transit’s insured, Batista. The underlying action arose from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 12, 2002. Brown forwarded copies of the summons and complaint to American Transit in January, 2006 at the address previously used in correspondence between American Transit and Brown. Unbeknownst to Brown, American Transit had moved its offices in November 2003.
The ever-popular Law School for Claims Professionals will be held on October 23 at the Hyatt Regency on Long Island. I am delighted to serve as chairperson for the event and will be lecturing on Notice, the newly- enacted prejudice legislation and Disclaimers. Other topics include Premises Liability, Auto Coverage Update, Subrogation and Liens. The afternoon will include two interactive workshops led by experienced coverage attorneys and will allow the claims professional to explore various coverage issues and options for addressing and resolving the issues.
In Regal Construction Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2009 Slip Opinion 05831 (1st Dept. 2009), the court held that National Union was obligated to defend and indemnify URS Corp. in an underlying personal injury action. At issue was the status of URS as an additional insured under a policy issued to the prime contractor, Regal, for a construction and renovation project at Riker’s Island.
On June 4, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals decided Allstate v. Rivera and Clarendon v. Nunez, affirming the appellate division and finding that no trigger for underinsured motorist coverage was present where the insurance policy of the vehicle occupied by the claimants and the offending tortfeasor's coverage was the same. This may not sound novel based upon the plain reading of Insurance Law 3420 which defines SUM coverage as being triggered where the liability limits of another motor vehicle are in a lesser amount than the claimant's limits.
If you're interested in UM/SUM law, NBI is sponsoring an all day program regarding UM/SUM coverage on May 8th at the Holiday Inn, Plainview, NY. I will be addressing Key Elements of UM/SUM coverage. Other topics include arbitration and mediation, liens and subrogation rights and discovery issues.
In a case I litigated in the Southern District of New York, the court applied the de facto merger doctrine and held US Liability (Mount Vernon)was obligated to reimburse the New York State Insurance Fund for 20% of the verdict in the underlying action up to its $1 million policy limit. The underlying action involved injuries to one Yong Hwan Chae and the relationship betweeen the US Liabilty insured, Master Duct, and another company owned by the same principal, who operated from the same address, performing the same work.
