About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/aliliabil9926 and id is 1 raw text is: LIABILITY INSURANCE CHAPTER 1. BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT RULES TOPIC 2. WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL § 5. Waiver N.Y.2019. Cit. in diss. op. General contractor sued subcontractor's insurer, alleging that insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify it, as an additional insured, against a personal-injury action filed against it by subcontractor's employee, because insurer's disclaimer of liability was untimely and thus void under a state statute that required insurers to promptly disclose coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for insurer, finding that the disclosure provision-which required insurers to confirm the existence of a liability policy and to specify its coverage limits-was distinct from the provision mandating timely disclaimer of liability and denial of coverage. The court of appeals and this court affirmed. The dissent cited Restatement of Liability Insurance §§ 5 and 6 in arguing that the majority's reading of the statute rendered it meaningless, because it was of no help to policyholders or victims to know that a policy existed with a maximum coverage limit until an insurer disclosed whether their claims were covered by the policy. Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC, 132 N.E.3d 568, 580, 584. § 6. Estoppel N.Y.2019. Cit. in diss. op. General contractor sued subcontractor's insurer, alleging that insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify it, as an additional insured, against a personal-injury action filed against it by subcontractor's employee, because insurer's disclaimer of liability was untimely and thus void under a state statute that required insurers to promptly disclose coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for insurer, finding that the disclosure provision-which required insurers to confirm the existence of a liability policy and to specify its coverage limits-was distinct from the provision mandating timely disclaimer of liability and denial of coverage. The court of appeals and this court affirmed. The dissent cited Restatement of Liability Insurance §§ 5 and 6 in arguing that the majority's reading of the statute rendered it meaningless, because it was of no help to policyholders or victims to know that a policy existed with a maximum coverage limit until an insurer disclosed whether their claims were covered by the policy. Nadkos, Inc. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC, 132 N.E.3d 568, 580, 584. CHAPTER 2. MANAGEMENT OF POTENTIALLY INSURED LIABILITY CLAIMS TOPIC 1. DEFENSE § 13. Conditions Under Which the Insurer Must Defend COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.