monteiro_and_fishman_lawyers_ny

monteiro_and_fishman_lawyers_ny

Insurance Coverage

Michael Fishman heads the Firm’s insurance coverage division. He provides experienced insurance coverage counseling and representation to policyholders, carriers and brokers.

The lawyers at Monteiro & Fishman LLP are well versed in all aspects of insurance coverage law and maintain an active practice interpreting and rendering coverage opinions and consulting on insurance policies. Our practice also includes litigating suits involving declinations of insurance coverage and related extra-contractual issues.

The members of Monteiro & Fishman LLP have represented major insurance carriers including Amica Mutual Insurance, A.I.G., GuideOne Insurance Company, St. Paul Traveler’s Insurance Company, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, The Hartford, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, INSHURE, Inc., and Clear Blue Insurance Company. We are well versed in the ever-increasing changes developing in this area of law.

We provide support to our clients involving personal, commercial and professional insurance coverage disputes under a wide variety of insurance policies, including general liability, homeowners, auto, builders risk, environmental, professional liability, first party, excess, umbrella, surplus lines policies and reinsurance.

Additionally, we also represent insurance agents and brokers in various insurance related matters, including underwriting issues and broker liability. Notable matters include:

  • Summary Judgment granted with declaration that client Amica (insurance company) has no duty to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide insurance coverage to the insured in connection with a physical altercation that occurred in a hotel resulting in serious personal injury. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. William David Setter and Keith W. Harris, Index No. 128433/2020 (Supreme Ct. Ontario County 2021).
  • Obtained favorable settlement in insurance coverage action against primary and excess insurers of historic policies on behalf of a school district seeking a declaration that it is entitled to a defense and indemnity in connection with an action brought against the district under the Child Victim Act.  Onteora Central School District v. CNA Insurance Company, et al., 1:21-CV-0027(N.D.N.Y. 2021).
  • Obtained insurance coverage for school district clients pre-lawsuit under various historic policies which the carriers initially denied existed, in connection with various underlying actions brought against the districts under the New York Child Victim Act.
  • Following oral argument, Appellate Court First Department unanimously affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to client Chelsea Piers and fount entitlement to additional insured coverage.  Chelsea Piers L.P., et al. v. Colony Insurance Company, et al.,Index No. 150402/2017 (1st Dep’t 2019).
  • Summary Judgment motion granted with the Supreme Court declaring that Chelsea Piers is additional insured on its vendor/subcontractor’s primary and excess insurance policies and entitled to a defense; obtained reimbursement for past defense costs. Chelsea Piers L.P., et al. v. Colony Insurance Company, et al.,Index No. 150402/2017 (Supreme Ct. N.Y.  County, 2018).
  • Summary Judgment granted, declaring that Amica is not obligated to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide liability insurance coverage to son of insured in connection with a serious physical injury.  The son was found to not reside in the insured’s household at time of accident and therefore not a policy “insured”. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Camilleri et al., Index No. 63270/2014 (Supreme Ct. Suffolk County 2018).
  • Successfully persuaded AIG to withdraw its declination letter and provide coverage to its insured in connection with an underlying multimillion dollar construction defect matter.
  • Motion for summary judgment granted in Supreme Court finding that Chelsea Piers qualified an additional insured on its vendor/subcontractor’s primary and excess insurance policies and entitled to a defense by such carriers in the underlying action and reimbursement for past defense costs. That decision was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Court First Department. Chelsea Piers L.P., et al. v. Colony Insurance Company, et al. Index No. 150402/2017 (1st Dep’t 2019).
  • Motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Amica is not obligated to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide liability insurance coverage to son of insured in connection with a serious physical injury. Mr. Fishman obtained the son’s college financial aid application from a North Carolina (“NC”) school, and elicited testimony that the son currently received “in-state” reduced tuition (available only to local NC residences). The son was found to not reside in the insured’s household at time of accident and therefore not an “insured”.  Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Camilleri et al., 63270/2014 (Supreme Ct., Suffolk County 2018).
  • Motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Amica is not obligated to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide liability insurance coverage to son of insured in connection with an assault. The assault did not qualify as an “occurrence” under the policy and insured failed to timely notice the claim. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Prunitis et al., 607023/2015 (Supreme Ct., Suffolk County 2018).
  • Granted summary judgment in favor of insurance client finding that the general contractor was not an additional insured under the subcontractor’s primary or excess insurance policies. Hargob Realty Assoc., Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., Index. No. 2293/07 (Supreme Ct., Nassau County 2009), aff’d 73 A.D.3d 856, 901 N.Y.S.2d 657 (2d Dep’t 2010).
  • Represented insurer client in complex environmental insurance coverage matter involving multiple years and layers of coverage for decades of alleged environmental contamination by manufacture insured, a publicly traded company, to the surrounding ground and water. Standex International Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 08-cv-1608 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Represented insurer client in a federal declaratory judgment action involving alleged environmental damage associated with certain oil spills off the Gulf Coast. Petroterminal de Panamas S.A. v. Houston Ca. Co., et al., 80-cv-0547 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Represented clients and analyzed coverage issues associated with the World Trade Center Litigation. In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 100, et al. (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Represented insurer client and orchestrated a favorable multi-carrier settlement of a complex declaratory judgment action associated with a multi-million dollar underlying construction-defect lawsuit. Salt River Construction Services, LLC v. USF Insurance Company et al., Case No. 07 SL-CC 01427 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis County).
  • Represented insurer client in an insurance coverage dispute with the National Independent Truckers Association. American Automobile Insurance Company v. National Association of Independent Truckers, et al., Case No. 07-009470 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward County).
  • Worked with the EPA in drafting a White Paper analyzing the affects of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and the potential liabilities and coverage issues associated with same.
  • Analyzed AIG’s exposure to the Supreme Court of Canada’s allowing British Columbia to sue tobacco companies to recover billions in tobacco-related health care costs in what legal commentators called “the biggest case in the history of Canadian jurisprudence.” Total liability was estimated at over 200 billion dollars.British Columbia v. Tobacco Manufacturers.
  • Analyzed AIG’s exposure from hundreds of insurance policies (including excess, umbrella and reinsurance) for a 2.4 billion dollar verdict forcing insured’s to inspect, clean and remodel approximately 240,000 homes in Rhode Island built before 1980 that contained potentially contaminated lead paint. In that case, the state of Rhode Island claims that tens of thousands of children have suffered lead poisoning from paint in those homes. The insureds manufactured lead paint during the relevant time period. State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association.