Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance

181 A.D.2d 519

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 17, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 519 (Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance) 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

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. American Motorists Insurance, 181 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered May 10, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendant has a concurrent and equal duty as a co-insurer together with plaintiffs to defend its insureds in the underlying action and shall be responsible for twenty-five percent of all legal fees and expenses currently outstanding and to be incurred in the future in connection with the defense of the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to the issue of defendant’s obligation to defend the underlying action, we affirm for the reasons stated by the IAS court. As to allocation of defense costs, we note that, as conceded by defendant at oral argument, the within policies provided successive, rather than concurrent, coverage to the insureds, and each insurer is therefore responsible for an equal share of defense costs (cf., North Riv. Ins. Co. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 172 AD2d 46). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered May 10, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendant has a concurrent and equal duty as a co-insurer together with plaintiffs to defend its insureds in the underlying action and shall be responsible for twenty-five percent of all legal fees and expenses currently outstanding and to be incurred in the future in connection with the defense of the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to the issue of defendant’s obligation to defend the underlying action, we affirm for the reasons stated by the IAS court. As to allocation of defense costs, we note that, as conceded by defendant at oral argument, the within policies provided successive, rather than concurrent, coverage to the insureds, and each insurer is therefore responsible for an equal share of defense costs (cf., North Riv. Ins. Co. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 172 AD2d 46). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-mutual-insurance-v-american-motorists-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack