Opinion · Nylaw New York

TRAVELERS CAS. v. CERTAIN U/w AT LLOYD'S, 277 A.D.2d 100 [1st Dept 2000]

TRAVELERS Cas. & Sur. Co., ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v.CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS., 277 A.D.2d 100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 2000)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
2000-11-16
Topic
general

TRAVELERS CAS. v. CERTAIN U/w AT LLOYD'S, 277 A.D.2d 100 [1st Dept 2000] TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v.CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. November 16, 2000. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for recovery of additional sums under reinsurance contracts, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Mary Kay Vyskocil, for plaintiff-appellant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed TRAVELERS CAS. v. CERTAIN U/w AT LLOYD'S, 277 A.D.2d 100 [1st Dept 2000]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

TRAVELERS CAS. v. CERTAIN U/w AT LLOYD'S,277 A.D.2d 100[1st Dept 2000]
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
November 16, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for recovery of additional sums under reinsurance contracts, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Mary Kay Vyskocil, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert B. Robinson, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
In light of our previous decision interpreting the applicable reinsurance language and rejecting plaintiff's reliance on the "follow the fortunes" doctrine with respect to its decision to allocate separate claims to reinsurance as a single loss, the IAS court correctly concluded that plaintiff can not meet its burden of establishing a single unifying cause for its separate claims to justify the submission of the policyholder's distinct claims as a single loss for purposes of the reinsurance policies (
Travelers Cas. Sur. Co. v. Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's
,263 A.D.2d 368). The IAS court properly relied on competent documentary evidence that had been prepared by plaintiff in connection with the underlying litigation demonstrating that plaintiff' s settlement with the policyholder encompassed numerous distinct claims arising from unrelated polluting activities and damages at numerous sites throughout the United States that were not linked by a common origin.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.