August 2014: Insurance Litigation Update

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

No Longer on the Hook for Indemnity: NY Court of Appeals Reverses Decision That Held Insurers Liable to Indemnify Where They Wrongly Refused to Defend a Claim. In a decision last year in K2 Investment Group, LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., the New York Court of Appeals held that a wrongful failure to defend would result in the insurer being on the hook for indemnity, even if there was no coverage because of an applicable exclusion. The decision sent shockwaves through the insurance industry. Earlier this year, the court granted reconsideration on the ground that even a wrongful failure to defend does not create indemnity where there is none. This reversal brings New York back in line with the predominant rule nationally.

The Original Decision. The New York Court of Appeals handed down its first decision in K2 Investment Group, LLC v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., 993 N.E.2d 1249 (N.Y. 2013), on June 11, 2013. The underlying case concerned a legal malpractice claim brought against a NY attorney. The plaintiff, K2, loaned money to a company which subsequently defaulted on the loan. The NY attorney partly owned that company, and had failed to register K2’s mortgages. As a result, K2 faced difficulties in recovering against the assets securing the loan. K2 alleged that the NY attorney had represented it in the transaction and had committed malpractice in failing to register the mortgages.

The NY attorney was insured for malpractice by American Guarantee. American Guarantee refused to defend him, and he suffered a default judgment. American Guarantee later conceded that it was, indeed, required to defend the attorney. The attorney assigned his rights against the insurer to K2, which brought suit against American Guarantee seeking indemnification for the judgment against the attorney.

American Guarantee sought to rely on two exclusions in the policy (the “business enterprise” and the “insured’s status” exclusions) to establish that the loss suffered by the attorney was not covered. In its June 2013 decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the failure of American Guarantee to fulfill its duty to defend the attorney disentitled it from relying on the exclusions in the policy.

The Reversal. The Court was asked to reconsider its earlier decision, and reversed it in an opinion handed down on February 18, 2014: K2 Investment Group, LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., 983 N.Y.S.2d 761 (N.Y. 2014).

The New York Court of Appeals held that its earlier decision was in error for failing to give regard to a controlling precedent, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 477 N.E.2d 441 (N.Y. 1985). In Servidone, the Court held that when an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend an insured, that insurer is not precluded from asserting its defences to coverage for indemnity. Servidone concerned an insured who had entered into a settlement. The New York Court of Appeals’ judgment in K2 has now confirmed that the same principle applies equally where judgment has been entered against the insured.

Consequences. The June 2013 decision had elicited widespread concern from the NY insurance industry, prompting many insurance associations to file amicus briefs. The Court of Appeals’ reversal not only brings New York back in line with the predominant national rule, but also removes a precedent that may have proved tempting for courts in other states faced with sympathetic insureds.

Defense Costs at Risk in Australia and New Zealand. Recent developments in Australia and New Zealand have called into question whether insureds can access defense costs to defend a claim against them.

New Zealand and many states in Australia, including New South Wales, have statutes which create charges, in favor of claimants, over insurance funds potentially payable to insured defendants. The provisions were designed decades ago, to address a perceived risk of an insured obtaining a sum from an insurer, and then either disappearing or becoming insolvent. In both situations, even if the claimant obtained a verdict against the insured, the claimant may not recover, or may not recover in full. Until recently, these (somewhat obscure) provisions were rarely considered or invoked.

Liability insurance policies typically provide coverage for the costs incurred by an insured in defending a claim, which are to be paid prior to the resolution of the claim. It is also usual for the limits of the policies to be inclusive of defense costs, meaning that payment of defense costs erodes the limit available to meet any eventual liability. Recent decisions in New Zealand and Australia have considered whether, because the payments erode the limit, they are subject to the statutory charge. If defense costs are subject to the charge, then insurers cannot pay defense costs without subjecting themselves to liability for the payments made. More specifically, if an insurer pays defense costs, and a claimant subsequently establishes liability which exceeds the remaining limit on the policy, then the claimant may enforce the charge against the insurer, thereby requiring the insurer to pay the value of the payments already made. To avoid this issue, an insurer may refuse to pay defense costs. While the insured could sue on the contractual right to defense costs in response, the existence of the statutory charge may be a valid defense. These issues are now the subject of competing jurisprudence in Australia and New Zealand.

In Steigrad & Ors v. BFSL 2007 Ltd. & Ors, [2011] NZHC 1037, the New Zealand High Court held that defense costs could be subject to the statutory charge. The New Zealand Court of Appeal overturned that decision. Subsequently, in Chubb Insurance Company v. Moore [2013] NSWCA 212, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an effectively identical New South Wales statute. The case was decided on a preliminary issue, such that it was not necessary to consider whether the statutory charge applied to defense costs. That said, the unanimous obiter dicta of the Justices was that the statutory charge could not attach to defense costs. Following the New South Wales decision, by a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court of New Zealand overturned the New Zealand Court of Appeal, holding that the statutory charge could attach to defense costs. In doing so, the Supreme Court of New Zealand commented negatively upon the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision. An appeal from the New South Wales decision was pending before the High Court of Australia, but in March a conditional settlement was announced such that it is unlikely the appeal will proceed.

The clear result, in New Zealand at least, is that the statutory charge can apply to defense costs. The position in Australia is more uncertain: the industry is guided only by the obiter dicta of an intermediate appellate court, which has been directly engaged with and rejected by the New Zealand Supreme Court.

The Australian insurance industry has responded by offering separate defense costs only coverage. This approach was endorsed by the New Zealand Supreme Court. The New South Wales Court of Appeal acknowledged that, if the charge did apply to defense costs, splitting the coverage would overcome the problem. However, the Court observed that that “supposed solution” is contrary to “commercial logic.” Split coverage encourages insureds to take out more coverage than they may need (for more premium). It also creates a risk that policy funds will be inaccessible to insureds and claimants, because they are available only for defense costs or only to meet liability.

The statutory charge issue continues to be raised in Australia. Insureds would welcome binding precedent or legislative intervention to resolve the current uncertainty. In New Zealand, some commentators are calling for the Supreme Court’s decision to be reversed by legislation.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.