Defendants Face Demanding Disclosure Requirements Under the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act
A discussion of the new CIDA, signed into law on Dec. 31, 2021, by Governor Hochul, which overhauls CPLR 3101(f) and places significant burdens on defendants to proactively provide to plaintiffs certain insurance information and documentation. While the CIDA as amended is more palatable to defendants, it still marks a significant change in insurance disclosures that defendants in New York state actions are required to make.
April 20, 2022 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
InsuranceWith the passing of the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (CIDA), defendants are faced with a new landscape of insurance disclosure requirements. For years, New York courts have permitted parties to "obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part of all of a judgment … or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment." CPLR 3101(f) (McKinney 2020).
On Dec. 31, 2021, however, this permissive approach of providing relevant insurance information only when requested by an opposing party was turned on its head when Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the CIDA, which overhauled CPLR 3101(f) and places significant burdens on defendants to provide proactively to plaintiffs certain insurance information and documentation.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllUber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
3 minute readInsurance Company Sues Over 180 Health Care Providers for Fraud Under RICO
3 minute readNew York Court of Appeals Tightens Pleading Standards Against Insurance Policyholder
7 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1FTX One Year Later: The Impact on Examiner Practice in Bankruptcy Courts
- 2Gen AI Legal Contract Startup Ivo Announces $16 Million Series A Funding Round
- 3DOJ's Flawed Thinking in Challenging HPE-Juniper Merger
- 4Annual Self-Check: Testing For Bias On The Bench
- 5'None of Us Like It': How Expedited Summer Associate Recruiting Affects Law Students and the Firms Hiring Them
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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