Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Arch Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Arch Insurance

116 A.D.3d 628, 984 N.Y.S.2d 361

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

DecidedApril 29, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 628 (Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Arch 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

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Arch Insurance, 116 A.D.3d 628, 984 N.Y.S.2d 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin Schweitzer, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2012, which granted defendant RSUI Indemnity Company’s (RSUI) motion to dismiss the complaint made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that the express terms of RSUI’s policy providing excess coverage to plaintiff required the previous layer of excess coverage to be exhausted through actual payment of that policy’s limit, prior to RSUI being required to pay (see e.g. JP Morgan Chase & Co. v Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 98 AD3d 18 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858 [2013]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 260.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin Schweitzer, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2012, which granted defendant RSUI Indemnity Company’s (RSUI) motion to dismiss the complaint made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that the express terms of RSUI’s policy providing excess coverage to plaintiff required the previous layer of excess coverage to be exhausted through actual payment of that policy’s limit, prior to RSUI being required to pay (see e.g. JP Morgan Chase & Co. v Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 98 AD3d 18 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858 [2013]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 260.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 628, 984 N.Y.S.2d 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forest-laboratories-inc-v-arch-insurance-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack