The Duty to Defend Additional Insureds in Post-Burlington New York

Anyone with a connection to the insurance coverage world in New York knows about the New York Court of Appeals 2017 decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v. NYC Transit Auth., 29 N.Y.3d 313 (2017), which held that “where an insurance policy is restricted to liability for any bodily injury ‘caused, in whole or in part’ by the ‘acts or omissions’ of the named insured, the coverage applies to injury approximately caused by the named insured.”  At the time the decision
Continue reading...

New York Appellate Court Permits Use of Extrinsic Facts to “Clarify Ambiguous Pleadings” and Establish the Applicability of a Policy’s Auto Exclusion

On October 23, 2018, our Global Insurance Services group hosted an interactive webinar discussing states’ varying interpretations of what is considered “loading and unloading” in the context of a liability policy’s “Aircraft, Auto or Watercraft” exclusion. During that presentation, we identified inconsistencies in the courts’ application of this provision when assessing an insurer’s duty to defend, particularly in New York. Ironically, that same day, a New York Appellate Court analyzing the application of a the “Aircraft, Auto or Watercraft” exclusion
Continue reading...

New York Court Finds Insured Failed to Establish its Broad Discovery Demands Might Lead to Evidence Relevant to the Application of an Exclusionary Provision in Commercial General Liability Policy

In Northfield Insurance Company v. Golob, an insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to owners of a residential construction project. The policy contained an exclusion titled “Contracted Persons” exclusion, which barred coverage for bodily injury sustained by any person “employed by . . . any organization that . . . [c]ontracted with [the named insured] or with any insured for services” where the injuries “[arose] out of and in the course of employment by that organization.” As a part
Continue reading...

New York Appellate Division Split on Claim Preclusion of Bad Faith Action

By decision dated June 8, 2018, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the trial court’s denial of an insurer’s motion to dismiss bad faith claims based on res judicata, in defiance of prior precedent from a separate Department of the Appellate Division. Corle v. Allstate Ins. Co., N.Y.S.3d , 2018 WL 2751204 (4th Dept. 2018) arises out of an incident in which the plaintiff, Colin Corle (Corle) was shot by Jeoffrey lee Bauter Teeter (Teeter). 
Continue reading...

A Divided Court Finds Additional Insured Coverage is Enforceable Across New York

On March 27, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, in a matter of first impression for the state’s highest court, held that a direct contract was required to confer automatic additional insured status under common policy language. Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d 146 (1st Dep’t 2016), aff’d, __N.Y.3d__, 2018 WL 1473553 (Mar. 27, 2018). Many standard blanket additional endorsements often confer additional insured status on entities “with whom” the
Continue reading...

Changes to New York State Insurance Law Affect Auto Policies, Neonatal Intensive Care Coverage, and Exposures for Mortgage Guaranty Insurers

Frederick J. Pomerantz, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services and Insurance Regulatory Practice Groups, has authored three alerts on changes to New York State insurance regulations in the November 2017 edition of the Federation of Regulatory Counsel (FORC) Alerts. In the alerts, Fred details notable recent changes pertaining to private passenger auto policies, neonatal intensive care services, and exposures for mortgage guaranty insurers. Analysis of Non-Renewals of Private Passenger Auto Policies Effective October 23, 2017, Section 1, Paragraph
Continue reading...

New York Court Denies Reinstatement of STOLI Policies for Lack of Standing, Finds Issue of Fact on Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The plaintiff was an investment trust that purchased life insurance contracts. It brought the instant action seeking damages for the insurer’s alleged breach of nine lapsed life insurance policies on three different individuals with a collective face value of over $80 million. It was undisputed that all nine policies were pieces of a “Stranger Originated Life Insurance” or “STOLI” transaction. Although purchasing life insurance with the intent of selling it to strangers became illegal in 2009, these transactions were legal at the time the policies in
Continue reading...

ELANY Publishes Practical Tips on Applying New York’s New Cybersecurity Regulation to “Unique Situations”

There has been a lot of commentary on New York’s new regulation entitled Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies (23 NYCRR 500) (the Regulation) which went into effect on March 1, 2017. On March 16, 2017, The Excess Line Association of New York (ELANY) released Bulletin 2017-12 which contains some practical guidance for insurance producers that will face some “unique situations” not addressed in the other commentary. Specifically, the bulletin refers to insurance producers that “may not meet the technical
Continue reading...

New York Issues Final Cybersecurity Regulation

On February 13, 2017, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) adopted the final version of its first-of-its-kind cybersecurity regulation, “Cybersecurity Requirements For Financial Services Companies” (23 NYCRR 500). This regulation took effect on March 1, 2017. The final regulation reflects several of the comments offered during the final comment period that concluded on January 27, 2017. For a prior list of significant changes from the initial version to the second version, please see our blog post located here.
Continue reading...

President Trump Takes Aim at Affordable Care Act; New York Governor Responds

Within hours of taking the Presidential oath of office, President Donald J. Trump issued his first executive order and it was directed at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The executive order formalized the Trump Administration’s policy to “seek the prompt repeal of the [“ACA”].” President Trump then directed executive department heads to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of the [ACA] that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden
Continue reading...