In Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. SAV Carpentry, 2007 NY Slip Opinion 08055, the court held that the insurer had established lack of cooperation by its insured, sustaining its disclaimer where it presented evidence of numerous letters to its insured regarding its discovery obligations and hired two separate investigators to locate and interview a principal of the insured.

In International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. Of America, 2007 NY Slip Op 08122 (1st Dept. 2007), the court was asked to determine the number of occurrences resulting from alleged exposure by 30 workers to certain organic compounds which the underlying plaintiffs claimed caused lung impairment and other respiratory injuries.

In International Couriers Corporation v. The North River Insurance Company, 2007 NY Slip Op 08106, (1st Dept. 2007), the court held that North River had a duty to defend its insured based upon the allegations of the underlying complaint, noting that the ultimate validity of the allegations was irrelevant.

In Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Goglia, 2007 WL 3102271 (1st Dept. 2007), the court held that New Jersey law applied where the defendant, a New York resident, was driving a commercial vehicle owned by his employer when he was involved in an accident in New Jersey. There was no contact between defendant and the hit and run vehicle, but instead, the vehicle in front stopped suddenly and the defendant swerved and struck a utility pole which fell on his vehicle. The defendant’s leg was amputated as a result. The policy issued to his employer included a $1 million SUM endorsement.

As you are aware from a prior post, (No Prejudice Bill Veto, August 3, 2007), Governor Spitzer recently vetoed legislation, which would have dramatically changed New York's Insurance Law. The Insurance Department has, since the veto, submitted several proposed drafts of legislation for the Legislature’s and Governor’s approval. It is expected that the legislation will be introduced in the next week for consideration by the Legislature in its next session.

The 2nd Department reversed the trial court and granted summary judgement to the insurer in Wilson v. Sirius America Insurance Company, 2007 NY Slip Opinion 07691 (2nd Dept. 2007), distinguishing the obligation to procure insurance from an obligation to indemnify.

In State of New York Insurance Department, Liquidation Bureau v. Generali Insurance Company, 2007 NY Slip Opinion 07767, (1st Dept. 2007), the court employed a “time on the risk” analysis to allocate the respective obligations of two insurers to the insured property owner in an action to recover damages for exposure to lead paint.

In Tully Construction Co., Inc. v. TIG Insurance Co., 2007 NY Slip Opinion 06983, issued by the 2nd Department on September 25, 2007, the court held that the insurer had met its burden and justified its 42 day delay in disclaiming.

The accident occurred on November 27, 2000 when a vehicle operator and passenger were killed when their vehicle hit a backhoe parked on the shoulder of the Staten Island Expressway. A primary policy issued by Zurich afforded $1,000,000 of coverage and TIG afforded excess coverage.

A 37 day delay in disclaiming was untimely as a matter of law, according to the First Department in Bovis Lend Lease v. Royal Surplus Lines, 2007 NY Slip Opinion 07317 (Oct. 2, 2007). The delay was measured from the date Royal received its investigator's report which presumably provided a basis for the denial of coverage.

The court also denied Royal's motion to renew, rejecting Royal's contention that a report from its investigator constituted "new" evidence and that it did not initially submit the report believing it was not discoverable.

In Hersch v. DeWitt Stern Group, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Opinion 2493147 (1st Dept. 2007), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims asserting negligence and breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, insurance broker failed to obtain adequate insurance coverage despite assurances to the contrary. Specifically, the court found questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff had specifically requested additional coverage for additions and alterations to his co-op which was damaged in a fire.