Curiale v. DR Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curiale v. DR Insurance

198 A.D.2d 52, 603 N.Y.S.2d 460

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 52 (Curiale v. DR 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

Curiale v. DR Insurance, 198 A.D.2d 52, 603 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of holding that the reinsurance policy in issue is not unenforceable for illegality, and that defendant is responsible as a "fronter” for the reinsurance syndicate’s entire liability under such policy, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as loss allocation is the primary matter of concern in this dispute involving a reinsurance policy, the IAS Court properly applied the grouping of contacts choice of law theory in deciding that New York law controls (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219, 226), giving appropriate weight to the place of execution. The British contacts, including negotiation of the policy in London, were all by third parties, mostly the brokers. While we agree with defendant that the policy itself is ambiguous, plaintiff’s extrinsic evidence of an agreement by defendant’s predecessor to be individually liable for claims made by plain[53]*53tiffs liquidatees suffices, prima facie, to establish defendant as a "fronter”, and was not met by countervailing evidence in support of defendant’s position to the contrary. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ. [See, 159 Misc 2d 208.]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of holding that the reinsurance policy in issue is not unenforceable for illegality, and that defendant is responsible as a "fronter” for the reinsurance syndicate’s entire liability under such policy, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as loss allocation is the primary matter of concern in this dispute involving a reinsurance policy, the IAS Court properly applied the grouping of contacts choice of law theory in deciding that New York law controls (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219, 226), giving appropriate weight to the place of execution. The British contacts, including negotiation of the policy in London, were all by third parties, mostly the brokers. While we agree with defendant that the policy itself is ambiguous, plaintiff’s extrinsic evidence of an agreement by defendant’s predecessor to be individually liable for claims made by plain[53]*53tiffs liquidatees suffices, prima facie, to establish defendant as a "fronter”, and was not met by countervailing evidence in support of defendant’s position to the contrary. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ. [See, 159 Misc 2d 208.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 52, 603 N.Y.S.2d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curiale-v-dr-insurance-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack