Société Générale v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Société Générale v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

1 A.D.3d 164, 767 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11814

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 164 (Société Générale v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's) 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

Société Générale v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 1 A.D.3d 164, 767 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, declaring that there is no coverage under the subject insurance policy for the claims against plaintiff in the underlying action entitled High Risk Opportunities Hub Fund Ltd. (in Liquidation) v Credit Lyonnais and Société Générale (Index No. 600229/00), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The coverage afforded plaintiff under the subject “Bankers’ Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy” was clearly and unambiguously limited to losses resulting from claims made during the policy period alleging plaintiffs “wrongful acts” in the performance of “professional services” (Albert J. Schiff Assoc. v Flack, 51 NY2d 692, 699 [1980]). Accordingly, the motion court properly declined to consider plaintiffs parol evidence offered to establish that the policy afforded plaintiff “all risks” coverage, and properly concluded that, since the allegations of High Risk against plaintiff in the underlying action did not involve the performance of “professional services rendered for others” as required under the policy, they did not trigger the insurers’ obligations under the policy (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Zuk, 78 NY2d 41 [1991]). High Risk’s complaint alleged plaintiffs failure to pay certain debt obligations involving currency derivative transactions linked to the value of the Russian ruble, in which transactions plaintiff, as principal, was trading on its own account, and not for a third party. No factual issues are raised as to whether the underlying transactions involved the performance of “professional services rendered for others” based on plaintiff’s claim that it acted as a “credit intermediary” between High Risk and plaintiffs Russian affiliate, Banque Société Générale Vostok, or that it performed duties incidental to the underlying transactions, such as acting as a valuation and calculation agent.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, declaring that there is no coverage under the subject insurance policy for the claims against plaintiff in the underlying action entitled High Risk Opportunities Hub Fund Ltd. (in Liquidation) v Credit Lyonnais and Société Générale (Index No. 600229/00), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The coverage afforded plaintiff under the subject “Bankers’ Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy” was clearly and unambiguously limited to losses resulting from claims made during the policy period alleging plaintiffs “wrongful acts” in the performance of “professional services” (Albert J. Schiff Assoc. v Flack, 51 NY2d 692, 699 [1980]). Accordingly, the motion court properly declined to consider plaintiffs parol evidence offered to establish that the policy afforded plaintiff “all risks” coverage, and properly concluded that, since the allegations of High Risk against plaintiff in the underlying action did not involve the performance of “professional services rendered for others” as required under the policy, they did not trigger the insurers’ obligations under the policy (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Zuk, 78 NY2d 41 [1991]). High Risk’s complaint alleged plaintiffs failure to pay certain debt obligations involving currency derivative transactions linked to the value of the Russian ruble, in which transactions plaintiff, as principal, was trading on its own account, and not for a third party. No factual issues are raised as to whether the underlying transactions involved the performance of “professional services rendered for others” based on plaintiff’s claim that it acted as a “credit intermediary” between High Risk and plaintiffs Russian affiliate, Banque Société Générale Vostok, or that it performed duties incidental to the underlying transactions, such as acting as a valuation and calculation agent.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 164, 767 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/societe-generale-v-certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack