East Coast CM Report of Recent Decisions – 2016 Vol. 4
Articles in this report
Maryland District Court Says Insureds Who Reject Panel Counsel In Favor Of Their Own Have To “Pay To Play,” Forfeiting Their Right To Defense And Indemnification From Their Insurer
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently settled an oft-addressed dispute regarding whether an insured is entitled to independent counsel (not panel counsel), when its insurer is defending it under a reservation of rights.
“With Whom” OR “For Whom”; NY Appellate Court Will Not Allow Equitable Considerations to Extend Coverage
In Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., (2016 NY Slip Op 6052, decided on September 15, 2016), the First Department heard arguments concerning the interpretation of the additional insurance endorsement in a commercial general liability (CGL) policy which provided that an additional insured is “any person or organization with whom you [the insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.”
The Summary Judgment Motion Standard
In Pullman v. Silverman, 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 07107 (Court of Appeals of New York, November 1, 2016), the Court overruled the previous order of the Appellate Division granting Defendant physician’s summary judgment motion, and held that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
Second Circuit Holds That The Arbitration Clause In The Body Of A Reinsurance Certificate Is Controlling And Not Displaced By An Endorsement Expressly Limited To U.K. And Bermuda Insurers
The Second Circuit recently held that New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s captive, First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co. (“First Mutual”), cannot compel the Swiss reinsurer Infrassure, Ltd. (“Infrassure”) to arbitrate in London. Infrassure, Ltd. v. First Mut. Transp. Assur. Co., No. 16-306, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20529 (2d Cir. Nov.16, 2016).
I Need More Time! What Constitutes Sufficient Time To Ameliorate A Hazard In A Storm In Progress, Snow And Ice Context
That a defendant acted reasonably or that it was not afforded a reasonable time period to remedy a hazard on its property is an often overlooked valuable weapon a litigator should use when defending a case in the realm of personal injury.
New Jersey Appellate Court Washes Away Insurer’s Water Damage Claim By Applying The Entire Controversy Doctrine
In Franklin Mutual Insurance Company v. Castle Restoration and Construction, Inc. and Falcon Engineering Co., LLC, Case Number A-5272-14T2, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (2016), the New Jersey Appellate Division employed the Entire Controversy Doctrine and held that Franklin Mutual Insurance (“Franklin Mutual”) could not pursue its subrogation claim against Falcon Engineering Company, LLC (“Falcon”).