Several important developments have occurred in a reinsurance dispute we last reported on in a September 27, 2011 post. The dispute is between Lexington Insurance and Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance. On March 28, the federal district court granted Lexington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking a declaration that its obligations to provide excess insurance coverage to the Port Authority was not contingent upon exhaustion of the limits of the underlying primary insurance policy. The court, examining the agreement between the parties, found that nothing in the contract language contained any express or implied requirement that the underlying policy be exhausted in order to trigger Lexington’s obligation to pay its share of covered damages. Following this decision, the parties entered into settlement discussions. On May 31, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Lexington Insurance Co. v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 11-cv-00391 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2012).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Court grants declaration in favor of Lexington Insurance; parties subsequently settle
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able...
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able to view the same law/cases from different perspectives; on the whole I would rate Lexology as a good service."
How Yee Loh