Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2014 |
| Citation | 992 N.Y.S.2d 185,23 N.Y.3d 583,15 N.E.3d 1194,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04113 |
| Parties | KEYSPAN GAS EAST CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Jonathan D. Hacker of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), Siegal & Park, Mount Laurel, New Jersey (Lawrence A. Nathanson of counsel), Boutin & Altieri, P.L.L.C., Carmel (John L. Altieri, Jr., of counsel), White and Williams LLP, New York City (Robert F. Walsh of counsel), Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C. (Michael L. Gioia of counsel) and Bates Carey Nicolaides LLP, Chicago, Illinois (Robert J. Bates, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.
Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. (Jay T. Smith and William F. Greaney of counsel), Covington & Burling LLP, New York City (Mark P. Gimbel of counsel), for respondent.
Proskauer Rose LLP, New York City (John E. Failla and Matthew J. Morris of counsel), for Environmental Energy Alliance of New York, LLC, amicus curiae.
Melito & Adolfsen PC, New York City (S. Dwight Stephens of counsel), and Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C. (Laura A. Foggan and Jennifer A. Williams of counsel), for Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association, amicus curiae.
In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff-respondent KeySpan Gas East Corporation seeks a declaration that defendants-appellantsMunich Reinsurance America, Inc., Century Indemnity Company, and Northern Assurance Company of America have a duty to defend and indemnify KeySpan for liabilities associated with the investigation and remediation of environmental damage at manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites formerly owned or operated by plaintiff Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). Defendants issued excess insurance policies to LILCO that required, as a threshold condition for coverage, LILCO to provide prompt notice of any occurrence that potentially implicated defendants' duty of indemnification.
In October and November 1994, LILCO notified defendants by letter about “environmental concern[s]” at retired MGP sites in Bay Shore and Hempstead, the only sites relevant to this appeal. LILCO stated that, although no regulatory agencies had commenced a lawsuit or formal investigation, LILCO expected agency action would be “forthcoming” and that the extent of its potential liability “if any” could not yet be determined. LILCO also notified defendants that a neighboring property owner had brought a property damage claim against the company for environmental contamination allegedly caused by the Bay Shore MGP LILCO asked defendants to “acknowledge [their] duty to indemnify [LILCO] for any damages that it may incur within [the] policy limits.”
Over the following year, defendants sent letters to LILCO in which they generally reserved all rights and coverage defenses, including the defense of late notice. Defendants also requested additional information about the MGPs and, noting that LILCO was self-insured at the primary level, sought documentation indicating that LILCO's coverage under the excess policies had been reached.
Between February 1995 and January 1996, LILCO provided supplemental disclosures to defendants about, among other things, LILCO's investigation of environmental damage at the MGP sites and its dealings with various regulatory agencies over the past 15 years. LILCO also notified defendants when, in August 1995, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) served a formal demand requesting that LILCO conduct site investigations and, if necessary, remediate the Bay Shore and Hempstead MGP sites.1 Defendants did not respond to these disclosures.
LILCO thereafter commenced this declaratory judgment action in September 1997. In their answers, defendants asserted late notice as an affirmative defense warranting denial of coverage. Defendants later moved for summary judgment based on late notice. After protracted procedural history not relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court granted summary judgment on the Bay Shore site and entered a declaration that defendants have no duty to defend or indemnify LILCO regarding those environmental damage claims, but denied summary judgment on the Hempstead site and five other MGP sites . The court held that, with the exception of the Bay Shore site, the reasonableness of LILCO's delay in notifying defendants of environmental occurrences at its MGP sites presented a question of fact for the jury ( see id.). The court also rejected LILCO's claim that defendants waived their late-notice defense by failing to disclaim coverage prior to interposing their answers ( see id.). Defendants appealed from the Supreme Court order only to the extent it denied summary judgment as to the Hempstead site. KeySpan, having been assigned the right to pursue LILCO's claims and added as a new party plaintiff, cross-appealed from the order to the extent it granted summary judgment as to the Bay Shore site.
The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court order by denying summary judgment on the Bay Shore site and vacating the declaration, and otherwise affirmed ( see Long Is. Light. Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 104 A.D.3d 581, 961 N.Y.S.2d 419 [1st Dep.2013] ). The court held that LILCO failed, as a matter of law, to provide timely notice under the policies of environmental contamination at both the Bay Shore and Hempstead MGP sites ( see id.). The court nevertheless declined to award summary judgment to defendants “because issues of fact remain as to whether defendants waived their right to disclaim coverage based on late notice” by “fail[ing] to timely issue a disclaimer” ( id.). Although defendants specifically reserved their rights to assert a late-notice defense, the court determined that a jury should consider whether, based on the supplemental information provided by LILCO, defendants “possessed sufficient knowledge to require that they meet the obligation to issue a written notice of disclaimer on the ground of late notice as soon as reasonably possible after first learning of the accident or of grounds for disclaimer of liability” (id. at 581–582, 961 N.Y.S.2d 419). Accordingly, the court held that triable issues of fact exist whether defendants waived their late-notice defense (id. at 582, 961 N.Y.S.2d 419). The Appellate Division granted defendants leave to appeal, certifying to us the question of whether its order was properly made (2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 80446[U] [2013] ).
Defendants argue that the Appellate Division wrongly applied the strict timeliness standard from Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) in considering whether defendants waived their right to disclaim coverage of LILCO's environmental damage claims. Although the Appellate Division did not cite section 3420(d)(2) in its decision, the court essentially recited the statute's disclaimer requirement when it stated that defendants had an “obligation” to disclaim coverage based on late notice “as soon as reasonably possible after first learning of the ... grounds for disclaimer” (104 A.D.3d at 582, 961 N.Y.S.2d 419). We agree with defendants that this was error.
Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) provides:
“If under a liability policy issued or delivered in this state, an insurer shall disclaim liability or deny coverage for death or bodily injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident or any other type of accident occurring within this state, it shall give written notice as soon as is reasonably possible of such disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant.”
The legislature enacted section 3420(d)(2) to “aid injured parties” by encouraging the expeditious resolution of liability claims (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gross, 27 N.Y.2d 263, 267, 317 N.Y.S.2d 309, 265 N.E.2d 736 [1970]; see First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 N.Y.3d 64, 68, 769 N.Y.S.2d 459, 801 N.E.2d 835 [2003] ). To effect this goal, the statute “establishe[s] an absolute rule that unduly delayed disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage violates the rights of the insured [or] the injured party” (Allstate, 27 N.Y.2d at 267, 269, 317 N.Y.S.2d 309, 265 N.E.2d 736). Compared to traditional common-law waiver and estoppel defenses, section 3420(d)(2) creates a heightened standard for disclaimer that “depends merely on the passage of time rather than on the insurer's manifested intention to release a right as in waiver, or on prejudice to the insured as in estoppel” (id. at 269, 317 N.Y.S.2d 309, 265 N.E.2d 736).
By its plain terms, section 3420(d)(2) applies only in a particular context: insurance cases involving death and bodily injury claims arising out of a New York accident and brought under a New York liability policy ( see Preserver Ins. Co. v. Ryba, 10 N.Y.3d 635, 642, 862 N.Y.S.2d 820, 893 N.E.2d 97 [2008] [...
To continue reading
Request your trial