Three key insurance disputes await before the New York Court of Appeals, and Hunton partner Syed Ahmad discusses the importance of these cases in Law 360's article entitled 3 Insurance cases to look at NY's High Court.
In KeySpan v. Munich Re the court will address whether the interpretation protection is responsible for cleaning costs during the time when the coverage for these costs was not available. Behind this judgment is a dispute as to whether pro rata or all amount amounts apply. The court will have the opportunity to apply its decision last year in Viking Pump, which we previously covered here and here. As Ahmad noted, the KeySpan appeal shows "that the Viking pump's ruling can give rise to many more questions than it raises."
Gilbane Building v. Paul the court will deal with an additional insured problem. The lower court found that the party seeking coverage as an additional insured under the additional insurance policy of the policy must have an actual written agreement with the insured. Since the insured only agreed to receive additional insured coverage for that party in a separate agreement with another entity, the appeal division found that the party seeking the coverage was not entitled to it. Ahmad pointed out that this "area of law is considered confused, mainly because the policy language adds as additional insurance is often separated from the separate agreements requiring additional insured status".
In the third case Global Re v. Annual Remuneration ̵