The New York Court of Appeals Vacates its Decision and Rejects “Coverage by Estoppel”

by Cozen O'Connor

The New York Court of Appeals rarely hears reargument of its decisions, let alone reverses itself. On February 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals did just that.

Last year, in K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.1, (K2-I), the Court of Appeals of New York issued a highly controversial decision — it held that when an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it cannot later rely on policy exclusions to deny coverage for indemnification. Pursuant to K2-I, an insurer’s wrongful failure to defend meant that the insurer may be liable up to its policy limits — even if the policy contains an exclusion that precludes coverage for indemnification.

Then, in a rare reversal, the Court of Appeals issued K2-II2, vacating its prior decision and rejecting the notion of coverage by estoppel. With K2-II, New York reverted to the previous rule, pursuant to which New York insurers that breach the duty to defend will be liable for that breach, but will not be precluded from relying on policy exclusions to deny coverage for indemnification. New York rejoined the majority of states, which reject coverage by estoppel.


The K2 plaintiffs gave another company $2.83 million in loans backed by mortgages. Plaintiffs subsequently discovered, after the company failed to repay the loans, that the borrower’s principal, an attorney, had never recorded the mortgages. Plaintiffs brought suit for malpractice, contending that the attorney had acted as their attorney with respect to the loans, even though he was an owner of the borrower in the transaction.

The attorney notified his malpractice insurer, which denied coverage and rejected the plaintiffs’ settlement demand of $450,000. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the attorney had not acted as counsel for K2, and thus, did not trigger the malpractice policy. The insurer also relied on policy exclusions for legal malpractice claims arising out of the attorney’s status as owner of the business.

After plaintiffs secured a default judgment in excess of the policy limit, the insured/attorney assigned to plaintiffs his causes of action against his insurer for breach of contract and bad faith failure to settle. Plaintiffs instituted a coverage action.

The trial court granted plaintiffs’ cross motion, holding that the insurer breached its duty to defend the attorney, and found the insurer liable for the judgment against the insured attorney up to the policy limit. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s rulings. Two judges dissented, arguing that issues of fact existed regarding the exclusions’ application.

The Court of Appeals Decisions

In K2-I, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling. The court did not address whether the exclusions applied, instead holding that by breaching its duty to defend the insured attorney, the insurer waived its right to rely on policy exclusions in litigation over its indemnity obligation.

In K2-II, the Court of Appeals vacated its decision, reversed the Appellate Decision’s order, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the court rejected the notion of coverage by estoppel, concluding that an insurer that breaches its duty to defend is not barred from relying on policy exclusions applicable to its duty to indemnify.

The court held that K2-I could not be reconciled with the court’s oft-cited Servidone decision3, in which the court held that when an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it has not waived coverage defenses applicable to indemnification of an insured’s settlement. The court noted that “in short, to decide this case we must either overrule Servidone or follow it. We choose to follow it.”

The court explained its reasons for preferring Servidone. First, a majority of states follow the Servidone approach. Second, plaintiffs presented no indication that the Servidone rule has “proved unworkable, or caused significant injustice or hardship.” Third, insurers and insureds are entitled to assume that a decision on insurance law will remain intact until the legislature decides otherwise. “In other words, the rule of stare decisis, while it is not inexorable, is strong enough to govern this case.”

Next, the court concluded that the status and enterprise exclusions present an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court found it possible that the insured attorney had been “serving two masters:” his company and plaintiffs. If that were the case, the claims against him would have arisen partly out of his status as principal of his company, which is precisely the situation the status and enterprise exclusions contemplate. Thus, the court agreed with the Appellate Division dissenters that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Justice Graffeo dissented, arguing that an insurer should be subject to legal consequences for breaching its duty to defend an insured. Justice Graffeo argued that K2-I should be upheld because it provides insurers with an incentive to defend their policyholders in underlying actions.

The K2-II decision once again places New York squarely within the majority of states that reject coverage by estoppel, and settles months of uncertainty and speculation in the insurance industry.

1 21 N.Y.3d 384 (N.Y. 2013).

2 K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., No. 6, 2014 NY Slip Op 1102(U), 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Feb. 18, 2014).

3 Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419 (1985).


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.

© Cozen O'Connor | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cozen O'Connor

Cozen O'Connor 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.