United States: 9 Key NY Insurance Cases Of 2014

Originally published by Law360, January 15, 2015

In 2014, New York courts developed significant legal precedent in a broad array of insurance coverage issues, including broker liability, allocation, data breach, right to attorneys' fees, discovery and bankruptcy. In the coming year, policyholders, insurance companies and brokers will grapple with these legal developments and New York courts will surely be given ample opportunities to analyze and review the new insurance law created by the 2014 rulings discussed below.

1. Zurich American Insurance Company v. Sony Corporation of America

On a national level, this is perhaps the most important insurance coverage case of 2014. Around 1974, the insurance industry added personal and advertising injury coverage to comprehensive general liability policies. This coverage included injury arising out of the publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy. For the past decade, this language has been subject to raging litigation across the country over whether violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are "published" within the meaning of personal and advertising coverage.

In Zurich v. Sony, the battleground has shifted to coverage for data breaches. Millions of Sony customers' personal information was compromised. This resulted in over 50 class actions, which were multidistricted in California. Sony's primary insurance companies, Zurich American Insurance Company and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America, sued Sony in New York. The court found that there was no coverage because there was no publication. The court reasoned that publication required an affirmative action by the policyholder and not an act by a third party. Since Sony's system was hacked, the court held that Sony did not transmit the information to a third party and was not entitled to coverage.

2. K-2 Investment Group LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company

This is perhaps the most perplexing of the 2014 insurance coverage decisions. The New York Court of Appeals initially held that if an insurance company wrongly denied its duty to defend, it was stopped from later asserting coverage defenses. However, the court then agreed to a rehearing. On reconsideration, the court fully reversed itself. It found that it had overlooked controlling precedent, and on the basis of stare decisis, reversed its earlier decision. The precedent was Servidone Constr. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y. 2d 419 (1985). The court ultimately ruled that the insurance company was not barred from relying on policy exclusions as a defense to the coverage suit.

3. Keyspan Gas East Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc.

In an environmental cleanup insurance coverage action, the New York Supreme Court held that Keyspan was entitled to a pro rata "time on the risk" allocation, because the incurred property damage triggered multiple insurance policies. Under this formula, costs are allocated to each year, based on the number of years when the policy was in effect (numerator) over the total number of years of the claimant's injury (denominator). For years where a policyholder has no insurance coverage, it is treated as self-insured and bears the responsibility for its pro rata share of damages. However, when insurance was unavailable, proration to the policyholder is inappropriate.

Under NY Insurance Law 46 (which was later repealed), the issuance of pollution insurance was prohibited from 1971 to 1982, and environmental cleanup coverage was therefore unavailable. Still, the court held that the years between 1971 and 1982 should be included in the denominator of the pro rata calculation. The court held that "Keyspan shall be considered self-insured and bear responsibility for the pro rata share of costs" even though pollution coverage was statutorily prohibited during this time.

4. Voss v. Netherlands Insurance Company

Under New York law, it is difficult for a consumer to hold its insurance broker liable. In Murphy v. Kuhn, 90 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1997), the court of appeals essentially held that a broker was an order taker, not a professional, and would not be liable in most cases unless there was a "special relationship" between the policyholder and agent. Until Voss, the court did not elaborate on what constitutes a "special relationship."

In Voss, the broker reviewed the client's business information and gave extensive advice, including how much business interruption coverage she needed to buy. The advice was wrong, resulting in severe losses to the client, who sued the broker. The broker moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that no special relationship existed between the broker and client. While the lower courts granted the motion, the court of appeals reversed and denied it, holding that whether a special relationship existed could not be decided on summary judgment. This case's holding is in tandem with American Building Supply Corp. v. Petrocelli Group, 19 N.Y.3d 730 (N.Y. 2012), in which the court of appeals held that a client's failure to read the policy did not bar an action against the broker. Major changes may be coming to New York broker law.

5. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA v. TransCanada Energy USA Inc.

This is another case where the insurance company sued its policyholder in New York. In this case, the court rejected most of the assertions of privilege by the insurance company. The assertions were based on the fact that attorneys had handled the claims. The court found that claims handling was the insurance company's normal business practice, and the mere fact that the insurance company used attorneys to handle claims did not "cloak" the documents in privilege. The court did draw a line between claims-handling documents and those documents providing legal advice, which would be privileged. This distinction will undoubtedly produce further litigation.

6. Newman Myers Kreines Gross PC v. Great Northern Insurance Co.

This Superstorm Sandy case arises out of Con Edison's decision to shut down certain electrical services to prevent damage — no damage had occurred. As a result of the electrical shutdown, lawyers at Newman Myers could not enter their building. The firm submitted a claim for business interruption with its property insurance company, which was denied. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the denial.

The court found that coverage under the policy was triggered by "direct physical loss or damage." The policyholder argued that direct physical loss or damage meant "an initial satisfactory state that was changed by some external event into an unsatisfactory state." The policyholder posited that the cessation of electrical services was "direct physical loss or damage," since it prevented access to the building. The court disagreed. It reviewed the case law upon which the policyholder relied, and found that the relied-upon cases involved "some compromise to the physical integrity of the workplace." It found that no such physical change occurred as a result of the storm.

7. Executive Plaza LLC v. Peerless Insurance Company

This case represents a welcome victory for legal realism over formalism. The policyholder's building was damaged by fire. The dispute was whether the policyholder would receive replacement cost value or actual cost value, which differed by $242,187.50. The policy had two disputed clauses. First, suit had to be brought by the policyholder within two years after the loss. Second, the policyholder could not bring suit until it had finished the repairs.

The policyholder sued Peerless in state court when two years had expired. Peerless removed the case to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss because the action was premature — the repairs were not complete. The policyholder then sued again in state court when it finished the repairs. The matter was again removed to federal court by Peerless, only to have the suit once again dismissed because more than two years had elapsed after the loss.

The Second Circuit certified the case to the court of appeals, which reversed and found coverage. It held that the Peerless clauses modifying the statute of limitations were unreasonable. The court held that there was nothing per se unreasonable about a two-year limitations period, but that the period became unreasonable when the policyholder could not repair the building within the two-year period.

8. American Home Assurance Company v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The New York Appellate Division, First Department recently bolstered the holding of Mighty Midgets. The First Department unanimously affirmed Judge Eileen Bransten's ruling in favor of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's right to its attorneys' fees in a successful asbestos insurance coverage action stemming from the construction of the original World Trade Center.

The First Department held that the Port Authority's counterclaim for declaratory relief did not cast the American Home Assurance Company in a "defensive posture." Instead, the First Department held that Port Authority's counterclaim was the "mirror image" of American Home's declaratory claim. An insurance company suing for a declaration of no coverage, including no defense coverage, is now liable for its policyholder's attorneys' fees even where the policyholder moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim for defense coverage.

9. In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.

In this case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether insurance proceeds under directors and officers liability policies constituted property of the bankruptcy estate. MF Global's former directors and officers sought payment under the policies for defense costs they had incurred in legal actions against them. The court granted their motion, stating "it appears that the D&O Proceeds are not property of the ... Debtors' estates[.]" The court allowed payment of the policies' proceeds, less $13.06 million, which constituted the amount MF Global Holdings Ltd. could claim against the policies if it paid certain estimated indemnification claims, minus a self-retention.

In reaching this decision, the court considered that lawsuits against MF Global Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. and indemnification obligations giving rise to a claim against the D&O policies (other than the claims already filed) were unlikely. The court also found particularly persuasive a "priority of payment" provision in the policies requiring payment to the former directors and officers prior to payment to MF Global Holdings Ltd. or its subsidiaries for: (1) amounts they might pay as indemnification to the directors and officers or (2) claims made against MF Global Holdings Ltd. or its subsidiaries.


If the above cases are any indication, 2015 will likely be fraught with actions tackling the insurance trends of 2014, particularly in the areas of coverage for data breaches and broker liability. Whether New York courts will continue to expand broker exposure remains to be seen. Similarly, whether courts will continue to limit coverage for data breaches will depend in large part on how courts interpret the newly popularized cyberinsurance policies. Still, the fact that insurance companies continue to bring suit against policyholders in New York suggests that the Empire State's law continues to provide a forum that will see many filings on novel issues.

DISCLOSURE: Anderson Kill represents the policyholder in National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA v. TransCanada Energy USA Inc. and American Home Assurance Company v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In addition, Anderson Kill's William G. Passannante filed an amicus brief on behalf of United Policyholders in Executive Plaza LLC v. Peerless Insurance Company.

Robert Chesler is a shareholder and Janine Stanisz is an associate in Anderson Kill's Newark, New Jersey, office.

Anna Piazza is a shareholder in Anderson Kill's New York office.

About Anderson Kill

Anderson Kill practices law in the areas of Insurance Recovery, Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law, Estate, Trusts and Tax Services, Corporate and Securities, Antitrust, Banking and Lending, Bankruptcy and Restructuring, Real Estate and Construction, Foreign Investment Recovery, Public Law, Government Affairs, Employment and Labor Law, Captive Insurance, Intellectual Property, Corporate Tax, Hospitality, and Health Reform. Recognized nationwide by Chambers USA for Client Service and Commercial Awareness, and best-known for its work in insurance recovery, the firm represents policyholders only in insurance coverage disputes - with no ties to insurance companies and has no conflicts of interest. Clients include Fortune 1000 companies, small and medium-sized businesses, governmental entities, and nonprofits as well as personal estates. Based in New York City, the firm also has offices in Ventura, CA, Philadelphia, PA, Stamford, CT, Washington, DC, Newark, NJ and Dallas, TX.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.