Insurer's Potential Liability for Prejudgment Interest in Excess of Policy Limit
The type of prejudgment interest involved (and the terms of the policy, if interest is part of the underlying claim) will determine whether the insurer is liable for such interest in excess of the policy limits even in the absence of bad faith.
April 08, 2022 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
Insurance LitigationAn issue which periodically arises in the insurance context is whether an insurer can be liable for prejudgment interest above the policy limit even in the absence of bad faith.
At the outset, it is important to distinguish between two distinct types of prejudgment interest under the governing statute, CPLR 5001.
Prejudgment interest that forms part of the "loss" covered by the policy accrues from the time the underlying claim arose and will ordinarily be subject to the policy's limits of liability. Insurers in New York are not bound as a matter of law to pay such prejudgment interest in excess of policy limits. Rather, the insurer's obligation is assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of the relevant policy language. Carlson v. American Int'l Group, 199 A.D.3d 1363 (4th Dep't 2021); Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Saco, 2017 WL 1214433 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); Alejandro v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 84 A.D.3d 1132 (2d Dep't 2011); Ashkenazy v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 245 A.D.2d 326 (2d Dep't 1997) (citing Cleghorn v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee, 244 N.Y.166 (1926)).
This content has been archived.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 readA RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 142. Elections Are Good for Big Law, Just Don’t Get Too Close
- 2Rudy Giuliani's Attorneys Seek Withdrawal in Debt Enforcement Case
- 3SEC, South Florida Developer Rishi Kapoor Reach Settlement
- 4Senate Democrats Advance 4th Circuit Pick Ryan Park’s Nomination
- 5Judge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
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