Amendments to CPLR Impose New Insurance Disclosure Requirements on Defendants
In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard Epstein and Theodore Keyes discuss the new disclosure obligations imposed by the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, the modifications to the original version of the Act, which scaled back some requirements, as well as some issues and concerns posed by the new disclosure obligations.
March 29, 2022 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
Insurance LawOn Feb. 24, 2022, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law an amended version of the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the Act), expanding the insurance disclosure obligations imposed on defendants in civil cases filed in New York state courts. The obligations imposed by the amended version of the Act are not as extensive as those in the version originally signed by the Governor on Dec. 31, 2021, but the Act nevertheless includes significant new insurance disclosure requirements. The new requirements have been codified at §§3101(f) and 3122-b of the CPLR and became effective immediately.
Prior to the new law, the CPLR merely permitted a party to take discovery in a pending action regarding the existence and contents of any insurance policy the proceeds of which might be available to satisfy part or all of a judgment (or to indemnify or reimburse payments made to satisfy a judgment) that might be entered in the action. This column will discuss the new disclosure obligations imposed by the Act, the modifications to the original version of the Act, which scaled back some requirements, as well as some issues and concerns posed by the new disclosure obligations.
|New Insurance Disclosure Obligations
The expanded requirements impose an affirmative obligation on defendants, third-party defendants and defendants on a counterclaim or cross-claim to produce "proof of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement … under which any person or entity may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the entry of final judgment." CPLR §3101(f)(1). A defendants' obligation may be satisfied by production of a copy of the relevant insurance policy or, if plaintiff agrees in writing, the declarations page of the policy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNo-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up: Recent Decisions Concerning New York's MVAIC Coverage
9 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
- 2Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
- 3'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
- 4NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 5ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250