Insurance Corp. v. Kenning Management of Connecticut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Insurance Corp. v. Kenning Management of Connecticut

60 A.D.3d 420, 874 N.Y.S.2d 93

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 420 (Insurance Corp. v. Kenning Management of Connecticut) 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

Insurance Corp. v. Kenning Management of Connecticut, 60 A.D.3d 420, 874 N.Y.S.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered June 10, 2008, which, in an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration, since plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate, and the management agreement between its parent Trenwick America Reinsurance Corporation (TARCO) and defendant Kenning, to develop and manage a run-off plan accepted by the Connecticut Department of Insurance relating to TARCO, did not cover either the corporate or individual parties to this action (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335 [1998]). Nor may the individual defendants compel arbitration as third-party beneficiaries of the TARCO agreement, since none of plaintiff’s claims against defendants arise under that agreement. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered June 10, 2008, which, in an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration, since plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate, and the management agreement between its parent Trenwick America Reinsurance Corporation (TARCO) and defendant Kenning, to develop and manage a run-off plan accepted by the Connecticut Department of Insurance relating to TARCO, did not cover either the corporate or individual parties to this action (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335 [1998]). Nor may the individual defendants compel arbitration as third-party beneficiaries of the TARCO agreement, since none of plaintiff’s claims against defendants arise under that agreement. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 420, 874 N.Y.S.2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insurance-corp-v-kenning-management-of-connecticut-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack