In Philadelphia Insurance Company v. Harleysville, we recently prevailed on a co-insurance dispute after a $350,000 jury verdict was rendered that another insurer refused to share. The other insurer also refused to contribute to any defense-sharing. The other insurer argued that Philadelphia was somehow estopped from claiming its co-insurance rights because it had allowed the matter to go into default as to a co-insured managing agent. In actuality, as we pointed out, the default was originally vacated by the trial court only to be reversed by the Second Department. As such, independent factors caused the default- -not the claims handling of our client. The Court thus applied the co-insurance equivalent shares rule as both insurers had identical āother insuranceā clauses. A copy of the decision is available here.
Michael A. Miranda and Anne K. Zangos presented the winning arguments on summary judgment.