On March 29, 2018, U.S. Dist. Judge Michael Shipp granted Mt. Hawley’s motion for summary judgment in part, and held that defendant Swift Construction (insured by The Hartford) must reimburse Mt. Hawley for the $1M paid by Mt. Hawley toward the settlement of an underlying NJ personal injury action.  This long-running litigation first spawned a reported decision in the NJ Appellate Division regarding an insurer’s subrogation rights.  See Andalora v. R.D. Mechanical Corp., 448 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 2017).  In that earlier case, the NJ Appellate Division held that Mt. Hawley could pursue a contractual indemnification claim as the subrogee of its policyholder, the general contractor ICS Construction, against the subcontractor, Swift, whose employee was injured during the construction project.

In a widely reported decision, dated February 9, 2018, District of New Jersey Judge Kevin McNulty granted Ford Marrin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, thereby dismissing the complaint against the firm’s client, RLI Insurance Company. The insurance coverage lawsuit arises out of an underlying dispute over the lapsing of $15 million in key person life insurance. The court held that RLI had no duty to defend or indmnify a consulting and investment firm based on a failure to maintain insurance exclusion in the investment firm’s Professional Liability insurance policy.

In Merendino v. Coscto Wholesale Corp., (Sup. Ct. NY), Index No. 154010/2012, plaintiff allegedly fell twelve feet from scaffolding while working at a Costco facility on Staten Island. In response to Ford Marrin’s motion, Judge Arlene Bluth ruled as a matter of law that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his alleged injury by failing to use an available safety harness that he admitted leaving in his truck, and dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims against Ford Marrin’s client, a demolition subcontractor.

Crescendo Designs, Ltd., v. Reses, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119 (2d Dep’t June 28, 2017). Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of libel and defamation claims against consumer who published an unfavorable review of a home electronics company on an internet customer review website holding that the review constituted a protected opinion and therefore was not […]

In a 4-2 decision written by Judge Jenny Rivera, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, First Department and granted summary judgment to the firm’s client, The Burlington Insurance Company, declaring that Burlington did not owe additional insured coverage to the NYC Transit Authority with respect to an underlying personal injury action. Interpreting standard ISO policy language in Burlington’s policy, the Court held that the phrase “caused, in whole or in part” by the “acts or omissions” of the named insured refers to “proximate cause,” thereby requiring negligence by the named insured as a condition of coverage for additional insureds under the policy.

This ruling has far-reaching implications for New York insurance coverage law. In addition to aligning New York law with that of other jurisdictions and the intent of the policy drafters, the decision now provides insurers with a coverage defense to additional insured coverage claims where the named insured is somehow causally connected to the accident, but otherwise without fault.