HNRK Coverage Corner
On January 9, 2023, Justice Lebovits of the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision in Peleus Ins. Co. v RCD Restorations Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 50034(U), holding that an insurer could not recoup defense costs from its insured, without an express reservation of the right of recoupment. The Court explained:
Although Peleus provided RCD with coverage in the underlying action/third-party action under a reservation of rights (see NYSCEF No. 17 [reservation of rights letter]), the letter notifying RCD of Peleus’s coverage position did not reserve the right "to recoup expenses [Peleus] incurred that are not covered by the polic[y]." (American Home Assur. Co. v Port Auth. of NY & N.J., 166 AD3d 464, 465 [1st Dept 2018] [permitting recoupment pursuant to plaintiff-insurer’s reservation of rights]; accord Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. SYN-1000263 v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, P.C., 112 AD3d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2013] [same]; cf. American W. Home Ins. Co. v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 192 AD3d 28, 36-41 [2d Dept 2020] [holding that an insurer may recoup defense costs upon a no-coverage determination only if recoupment is permitted under the terms of the policy itself, not merely the insurer's reservation of rights letter].)
Absent a reservation of Peleus’s right not merely to later deny coverage but also to obtain recoupment, this court sees no basis to permit recoupment now. (Cf. BX Third Ave Partners, LLC v Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co., 112 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2013] [denying recoupment when, among other things, the insurer "undertook the defense of the . . . action without a reservation of rights"].) Nor do Peleus's motion papers identify such a basis.
There is a split of authority in the appellate divisions concerning the right of an insurer to recoup defense costs under a duty to defend policy, upon a finding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify. While the First Department appears to have permitted such recoupment where the insurer reserves the right to do so, the Second Department, in a decision cited by Justice Lebovits, and previously covered on this blog, rejected this position, holding that recoupment is permitted only where expressly authorized by the policy. This issue may one day make its way to the Court of Appeals. Until then, the Second Department has the better argument. An insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured. And unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer cannot modify the terms of the parties’ agreement.
- 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
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- 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