Court Cousins

All articles by Court Cousins

 

“Made Whole” Doctrine Prevents Equitable Subrogation Where Insureds with Tortfeasors

In re September 11 Litigation, World Trade Center Properties LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London et al. (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2018) Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York has, for years since the September 11th attacks, been assigned the countless actions dealing with the massive property damage resulting from the tragedy. This is the last such case, which involves insureds making a claim against their insurer’s recovery from a
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...  

Calling all Policies! N.J. Special Master Allocating Costs under Owens-Illinois Implicates Excess Before Primary Exhausts

In The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Thomas & Betts Corporation, No. 13-6187, 2017 WL 3187217 (D.N.J. July 26, 2017), New Jersey’s federal court offers a meaningful example of how trial courts can use a special master to help resolve the tricky issue of allocating defense and indemnity costs involving multiple policies, layers, and years. In Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co., the Supreme Court of New Jersey urged trial courts to use a special master with “a substantial measure of
Continue reading...  

Must an Additional Insured Have a Written Contract With the Named Insured to Get Coverage? It Depends Which Court You Ask

There is a growing list of trial court decisions in New York where the courts disagree of whether an additional insured endorsement to an insurance policy requires a written contract between the additional insured and the policy’s named insured for additional insured status to apply. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company that contractual privity with the named insured was not required. In
Continue reading...