American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

19 A.D.3d 103, 796 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5922
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 103 (American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 19 A.D.3d 103, 796 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which, upon the prior denial of the motion of defendants-appellants United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) and St. Faul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (collectively, the USF&G defendants) to vacate the order of the Special Referee requiring them to produce documents related to the settlement in an underlying ac[104]*104tion between the USF&G defendants and their insureds, directed the ordered document production to proceed forthwith, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly ruled that the disputed documents relating to the settlement negotiations are discoverable since they are material and necessary to the reinsurers’ defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Masterwear Corp. v Bernard, 298 AD2d 249, 250 [2002], appeal after remand 3 AD3d 305 [2004]). The so-called “settlement privilege” is inapplicable since the reinsurers seek the settlement-related materials for a purpose other than proving USF&G’s liability in the underlying coverage action (see CPLR 4547).

The “follow-the-fortunes” doctrine (see Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 96 NY2d 583, 595-596 [2001]; see also American Ins. Co. v North Am. Co. for Prop. & Cas. Ins., 697 F2d 79, 81 [2d Cir 1982]) does not bar disclosure since, here, the reinsurers claim, with support in the record, that exceptions to the doctrine apply.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prospect Capital Corp. v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
2025 NY Slip Op 03659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Arad 2 LLC v. Hamo
2024 NY Slip Op 51265(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Time Warner Cable Enters. LLC v. Nokia of Am. Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 50969(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Rosenblum v. Trinity Hudson Holdings, LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 06407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
City of Newburgh, N.Y. v. Hauser
126 A.D.3d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity
40 A.D.3d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 103, 796 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-re-insurance-co-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-nyappdiv-2005.