St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

375 N.E.2d 733, 43 N.Y.2d 977, 404 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1870
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 21, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 375 N.E.2d 733 (St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 375 N.E.2d 733, 43 N.Y.2d 977, 404 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1870 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Although an insurance company in exclusive control of its insureds’ defense cannot be compelled to concede liability and settle a questionable claim before proof has been developed on all sides (e.g., Knoblock v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 38 NY2d 471), the defendant in this case refused to settle a claim in excess of its policy limits after liability had already been determined solely on factual issues by a jury (see Di Tomasso v Brookhattan Utilities, 40 AD2d 989, mot for lv to app den 32 NY2d 609). Under these circumstances, with liability having been established at trial, the excess carrier alone was placed at further risk due to the defendant’s intractable opposition to any settlement of the claim.

Given a record which adequately supports these affirmed findings, amounting to a breach of the defendant’s implied *979 obligation to manage its insureds’ defense in good faith (see, e.g., Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 NY2d 427, cert den 410 US 931; cf. Insurance Law, § 40-d, added by L 1970, ch 296, § 1), the imposition of liability for the excess judgment borne by the plaintiff was appropriate (see Kulak v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 140; Decker v Amalgamated Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 35 NY2d 950).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Weathers v. Tri State Consumer Insurance Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 6099 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Government Employees Insurance v. RLI Insurance
133 A.D.3d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Scottsdale Insurance v. Indian Harbor Insurance
994 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Federal Insurance v. North American Specialty Insurance
83 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kumar v. American Transit Insurance
57 A.D.3d 1449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Schwartz v. Twin City
Second Circuit, 2008
Schwartz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
539 F.3d 135 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co.
348 F. Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Illinois, 2004)
Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Imetal
235 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Calo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
251 A.D.2d 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Allstate Insurance v. American Transit Insurance
977 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. New York, 1997)
Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
626 N.E.2d 24 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
375 N.E.2d 733, 43 N.Y.2d 977, 404 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-ny-1978.