Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COUNTRY–WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff–appellant, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2023, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claims and awarding summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims as to liability only, declared that defendant excess insurer was not obligated to assume the defense of plaintiff's insureds in three underlying actions, and ordered that the issue of the amount of defense fees to be recouped by defendant be severed for a trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly granted defendant's motion to the extend indicated. Plaintiff, as the primary insurer, had the corresponding primary duty to defend the insureds in the underlying actions (see Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn, Inc. v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 16 N.Y.3d 257, 265, 920 N.Y.S.2d 763, 945 N.E.2d 1013 [2011]; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 4 N.Y.3d 451, 455, 796 N.Y.S.2d 2, 828 N.E.2d 959 [2005]). Plaintiff is an auto insurer, and it is well established both that Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 60–1.1(b) requires it to pay the defense costs until the case has ended. Plaintiff cannot avoid its duty by simply tendering its policy limits (see Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. National Cas. Co., 90 A.D.3d 859, 935 N.Y.S.2d 319 [2d Dept. 2011]; Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 84 A.D.3d 512, 513, 923 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept. 2011]; Haight v. Estate of DePamphilis, 5 A.D.3d 547, 548, 772 N.Y.S.2d 833 [2d Dept. 2004]; see also Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109, 117 [2d Cir. 2005]). Irrespective of the Insurance Department's regulations, plaintiff would still be required to provide a defense in this action, as its policy limits were not actually exhausted in the underlying cases until they were finally settled in 2022 (cf. Sport Rock Intl., Inc. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 65 A.D.3d 12, 22, 878 N.Y.S.2d 339 [1st Dept. 2009]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3099
Decided: November 26, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)