AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

KANSAS CITY FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP et al., Respondents, and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

The order appealed from and the order brought up for review should be reversed and judgment granted declaring that Hartford and Jefferson are to contribute in amounts in accordance with their settlement agreement. Mutual excess policies covering the same risk cancel each other out ( Federal Ins. Co. v Atlantic Nat. Ins. Co., 25 N.Y.2d 71). Here, neither clause contains language specifically making one an excess insurer over all other excess insurers covering the same risk, and neither one contains language the plain meaning of which would be distorted by the application of the general rule (contrast Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 651, with Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Firemen's Fund Amer. Ins. Cos., 55 N.Y.2d 868). Accordingly, the insurers have presented no basis upon which to alter the terms of their settlement agreement.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order appealed from and order brought up for review reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KANSAS CITY FIRE MARINE INS. v. HARTFORD INS. GROUP
(Oct 19, 1982)