NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, plf-ap, v. JORGENSEN & COMPANY def-res, RISK AVOIDANCE MANAGERS, INC., def

4366. NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, plf-ap, v. JORGENSEN & COMPANY def-res, RISK AVOIDANCE MANAGERS, INC., def — Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC, New York (Christopher R. Carroll of counsel), for ap — Clausen Miller P.C., New York (Kimbley A. Kearney of counsel), for Jorgensen & Company, res — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Mark K. Anesh of counsel), for Greenwich Insurance Company, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 4, 2016 which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Jorgensen & Company's motion to dismiss the claims for an injunction and the subrogation claims and to compel arbitration of the remaining claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4366. NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, plf-ap, v. JORGENSEN & COMPANY def-res, RISK AVOIDANCE MANAGERS, INC., def — Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC, New York (Christopher R. Carroll of counsel), for ap — Clausen Miller P.C., New York (Kimbley A. Kearney of counsel), for Jorgensen & Company, res — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Mark K. Anesh of counsel), for Greenwich Insurance Company, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 4, 2016 which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Jorgensen & Company’s motion to dismiss the claims for an injunction and the subrogation claims and to compel arbitration of the remaining claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that the claims asserted against defendant Jorgensen, which plaintiff describes as essentially alleging “fraud and intentionally dishonest conduct,” are subject to arbitration pursuant to the broad arbitration clause in the parties’ Program Management Agreement (see e.g. Szabados v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 174 AD2d 342 [1st Dept 1991]). The complaint does not allege fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause or fraud permeating the entire agreement (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307-308 [1984]).

NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, plf-ap, v. JORGENSEN & COMPANY def-res, RISK AVOIDANCE MANAGERS, INC., def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal