Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America

262 A.D.2d 103, 693 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6443
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 103 (Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America) 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
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America, 262 A.D.2d 103, 693 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Insurance Company of North America, Inc. (INA) issued a commercial general liability policy to its insured, covering liability to the insured of $1 million with a $250,000 deductible, defined as “the amount of damages under this policy which the insured has a duty to pay.” The policy also provided that INA had the right to pay damages within the deductible if the insured failed to pay a final judgment or settlement against the insured, and to pay any amounts within the deductible to settle any claim or suit. The insured was required to “promptly reimburse” INA for any such advances. These provisions demonstrate that the $250,000 was a true deductible, properly subtracted from the policy limits, and not a self-insured retention as contended by plaintiff excess insurer (see, Ostragen and Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes, § 1313 [a] [9th ed]). Accordingly, when the insured contributed $250,000 toward settlement of a wrongful death action for an amount in excess of the coverage afforded by INA, INA discharged its obligation under the subject policy by contributing an additional $750,000; it was not required to contribute $1 million, as it would have been had the $250,000 contributed by the insured represented a self-insured retention. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Lexington Ins. Co. v. New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 30137(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Trumbull Equities LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
2021 NY Slip Op 01154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
New York State Thruway Authority v. KTA-Tator Engineering Services, P.C.
78 A.D.3d 1566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 103, 693 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tokio-marine-fire-insurance-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyappdiv-1999.