From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Underwriting Members of Lloyd's of London

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion


240 A.D.2d 278 659 N.Y.S.2d 11 TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF LLOYD'S OF LONDON, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and English and American Ins. Co. Ltd., et al., Defendants. Supreme Court of New York, First Department June 17, 1997.

         Brendan M. Kennedy, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

        Mary Ann D'Amato, for Defendants-Appellants.

        Before MILONAS, J.P., and ELLERIN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

        MEMORANDUM DECISION.

        Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered May 20, 1996, which granted plaintiff's motion to require defendants to post preanswer security of $1,554,138.84 in compliance with Insurance Law § 1213(c)(1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

        Contrary to defendants' argument, the motion court did not conclude that the bonding requirement applied even if defendants had not transacted business in New York. Rather, the court found that defendants had engaged in purposeful activities in this State. We note that defendants' contentions with respect to the purported lack of jurisdiction were not advanced in the appropriate context, there having been no motion to dismiss on that ground, nor a jurisdictional affirmative defense in the answer; indeed, defendants conferred jurisdiction by serving such an answer. While we make no finding as to whether defendants had engaged in any of the activities enumerated in Insurance Law § 1213(b)(1), whether they had done so is immaterial since the statute does not make the obligation to post security contingent upon the manner of service (see, Curiale v. Ardra Ins. Co., 189 A.D.2d 217, 219, 595 N.Y.S.2d 186; 211 A.D.2d 473, 621 N.Y.S.2d 315; affd.88 N.Y.2d 268, 644 N.Y.S.2d 663, 667 N.E.2d 313) or the type of purposeful activity providing the basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction. We agree with the motion court's conclusion that the exception to the bonding requirement in Insurance Law § 1213(e) and § 2117 was inapplicable under the circumstances. We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Summaries of

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Underwriting Members of Lloyd's of London

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Underwriting Members of Lloyd's of London

Case Details

Full title:Travelers Ins. Co. v. Underwriting Members of Lloyd's of London

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

To the contrary, "whether defendants had engaged in any of the activities enumerated in [ section]…

Glob. Art Exhibitions v. Kuhn & Bulow Italia Versicherungsmakler GmbH

This security requirement applies to non-U.S. insurers regardless of “the manner of service or the type of…