HNRK Coverage Corner
On May 10, 2023, Judge Komitee of the EDNY issued a decision in Huang & Assocs., P.C. v. Hanover Ins. Co., Case No. 21-CV-4909(EK)(RER), holding that a law firm (Huang & Associates) was not entitled to coverage under its professional malpractice policy, for a negligence claim brought by a client whose funds were misappropriated by a third-party in a “real-estate transaction that went badly.”
The firm’s policy had an exclusion for any claim “[b]ased upon or arising out of, or relating directly or indirectly to . . . [a]ny actual or alleged conversion, commingling, defalcation, misappropriation, intentional or illegal use of funds, monies or property.” In Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Creative Housing Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 347, 350 (1996), the Court of Appeals held that the term “arising out of” or “based on,” as used in the policy exclusion, require only but-for causation. In that case, “a landlord covered by a general liability policy was sued by a victim of a criminal assault that occurred in the landlord’s building. The victim alleged ‘negligent supervision, management and control of the premises.’” The Court concluded that an exclusion for claims “based on Assault and Battery” applied to the negligence claim against the landlord because “no cause of action would exist ‘but for’ the assault.”
Judge Komitee held that the same result was required in this case. The Court declined to follow one intermediate appellate court decision, which held that Mount Vernon was limited to CGL policies and did not apply to E&O policies that are “expressly intended to provide coverage for negligent acts, including negligence in the hiring or supervision of employees.” Watkins Glen Cent. Sch. Dist. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 286 A.D.2d 48 (2d Dep’t 2001). Judge Komitee found this reasoning unpersuasive and concluded that the Court of Appeals would reject it, observing that the Second Department “did not even quote the language of the policy exclusion, much less wrestle with it in detail.” Further, “Watkins Glen did not explain its conclusion that to apply the exclusion would ‘completely undermine the purpose’ of E&O coverage,” and, in fact, “[t]here are many scenarios in which E&O and malpractice insurance policies would provide coverage notwithstanding the application of the Mount Vernon rule.”
In a decision discussed on this blog, the Appellate Division, First Department recently applied Mount Vernon to a policy exclusion for claims “arising out of” sexual misconduct, holding that coverage was excluded for a non-profit organization that was sued for negligent supervision by alleged victims of sexual abuse (“The underlying complaint’s negligent supervision claim necessarily arises out of sexual misconduct.”).
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- D&O Policies
- CGL Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Related Claims
- Occurrence/Accident
- Rules of Interpretation
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018