From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 2, 2005
19 A.D.3d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6210.

June 2, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which, upon the prior denial of the motion of defendants-appellants United States Fidelity Guaranty Company (USFG) and St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Company (collectively, the USFG defendants) to vacate the order of the Special Referee requiring them to produce documents related to the settlement in an underlying action between the USFG defendants and their insureds, directed the ordered document production to proceed forthwith, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, New York (Mary Kay Vyskocil of counsel), for appellants.

O'Melveny Myers, LLP, New York (Daniel L. Cantor of counsel), for Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association, Excess and Treaty Management Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty Insurance, Century Indemnity Company, Great American Assurance Company, Great American Insurance Company, Hanover Insurance Company, Insurance Company of New York and Providence Washington Insurance Company, respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.


The court properly ruled that the disputed documents relating to the settlement negotiations are discoverable since they are material and necessary to the reinsurers' defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Masterwear Corp. v. Bernard, 298 AD2d 249, 250, appeal after remand 3 AD3d 305). The so-called "settlement privilege" is inapplicable since the reinsurers seek the settlement-related materials for a purpose other than proving USFG's liability in the underlying coverage action ( see CPLR 4547).

The "follow-the-fortunes" doctrine ( see Travelers Cas. Sur. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 96 NY2d 583, 595-596; see also American Ins. Co. v. North Am. Co. for Prop. Cas. Ins., 697 F2d 79, 81 [2d Cir 1982]) does not bar disclosure since, here, the reinsurers claim, with support in the record, that exceptions to the doctrine apply.

We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 2, 2005
19 A.D.3d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 2, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
796 N.Y.S.2d 89

Citing Cases

Polsky v. 145 Hudson St. Assocs. L.P.

Defendants' understanding, at minimum, of a promise to purchasers in the Offering Plan, may be material and…

Kirkman v. AMC Film Holdings, LLC

Moreover, the plain text of CPLR 4547 states that the rule does not limit the admissibility of settlement…