Fried & Epstein LLP

News & Events

New York Enacts Ian's Law to Regulate Insurers and HMOs Seeking to Discontinue a Health Insurance Policy Form

On August 19, 2010, Governor David A. Paterson announced that he has signed “Ian’s Law” into law, which enhances protections for policyholders when a health insurer or health main-tenance organization (HMO) discontinues a class of policies or contracts. The legislation is named to honor Ian Pearl, who we represented successfully when his insurer discontinued the state insur-ance department approved form of the small group health insurance policy that had covered Ian since 1981. View decision and article.

New York Enacts a Statute to Compel an Appraisal Required in the Standard Fire Insurance Policy

Effective as of March 30, 2010, in New York, either a policyholder or a fire insurer can ini-tiate a special proceeding to compel the appraisal process in the standard fire insurance policy. This change in the law was recommended in Fahrenholz v. Security Mutual Insurance Co., 291 A.D.2d 876, 738 N.Y.S.2d 623 (4th Dep’t 2002) (Order dismissing a policyholder’s cause of action to com-pel an appraisal for a fire loss was affirmed). View Article.

Is Notice Pleading In Federal Court No Longer Plausible?

The days of federal court serving as a haven for those attempting to avoid the fact-pleading requirements of state court may be over. Within the past year, the United States Su-preme Court confirmed, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), that a new standard will be applied to evaluate the sufficiency of a federal court complaint. View article.

Court Holds That Insurer Cannot Have Its Cake And Eat It Too

In an important victory for policyholders, generally, and Fried & Epstein’s client, Tate & Lyle North American Sugars, Inc., specifically, the Louisiana Court of Appeals prevented an insurer that was behaving in this manner from having its cake and eating it too. View article and decision.

Federal Court Diversity Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court Hits A “Nerve Center”

View article and decision.

Fried & Epstein to Exhibit at RIMS 2010

Fried & Epstein LLP will be exhibiting at this year’s RIMS Conference and Exhibition April 25-29 in Boston, Massachusetts. Please stop by our booth, Number 530, for a one-on-one discussion on how to maximize your insurance benefits. Visit www.rims.org for more information.

Fried Named to Super Lawyers

John W. Fried has been named to The New York Super Lawyers – Metro Edition List 2009. Only 5 percent of attorneys are named to the list after an extensive process of peer nominations, blue ribbon panel reviews and independent research. Please visit www.superlawyers.com for more information.

NY D.A. Supervisor John W. Fried Lauded Sotomayor for Her Ability Right Out of Law School

"To Move Almost Seamlessly From Studying Law in Law Books to Being an Assistant D.A. in a Large Urban Environment," Compared Sotomayor to the Late Justice Byron White." Read more from the White House Briefing Room

New York High Court Finds Consequential Damages Available to Policyholders Bringing First-Party Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Claims

Two new decisions of the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) promise to change the face of insurance coverage litigation in New York. On February 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals held that policyholders who seek recovery for their insurers’ bad faith breach of their insurance policies can assert claims for “consequential damages.”

• View Article
• View Bi-Economy Decision
• View Panasia Decision

New York High Court Reaffirms Multiple-Occurrence Ruling

On May 1, 2010, the Court of Appeals of New York denied a motion for reargument of its original decision in Appalachian Insurance Company v. General Electric Company, 863 N.E.2d 994 (N.Y. 2010). By that denial, the Court dashed any remaining hopes that General Electric would obtain excess insurance coverage in connection with hundreds of thousands of personal injury claims arising from alleged exposure to GE’s asbestos-insulated steam turbines. In its original decision, the Court of Appeals held that the steam turbine claims constituted multiple “occurrences,” because the exposure of claimants differed in time, place and length. Since GE’s share of the typical judgment in connection with the turbine claims averaged only $1,500, and GE’s London Market excess policies did not attach unless the $5 million per-occurrence limit of its primary insurance was exceeded, no excess coverage would be available for the turbine claims.

The Court of Appeal’s multiple-occurrence ruling is at odds with a number of cases in other jurisdictions holding that the manufacture of an asbestos-containing product constitutes a single “occurrence,” for purposes of insurance coverage. Part of the reason for the New York decision likely rests on New York’s “unfortunate events” test for determining the “number of occurrences,” which focuses on “the nature of the incident giving rise to damages,” as opposed to the “cause” of the underlying injuries. For a copy of the decision, click here.

Insurer's Claim for Retrospective Premiums Barred by Statute of Limitations

In Reliance Insurance Company (In Liquidation) v. Griffin Dewatering Corporation, Case No. 2:05 CV 281 (N.D. Ind. 4/17/07), an Indiana federal magistrate judge recently became the first judge in Indiana to address the statute of limitations issue in the context of retrospective premium payments. The policyholder in the case, Griffin Dewatering, was represented by Fried & Epstein LLP. Griffin successfully moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that its insurer’s claim for breach of contract in connection with the payment of over $600,000 in retrospective premiums was barred, in major part, by the statute of limitations.

In addressing Griffin’s argument, the magistrate examined when Reliance’s claim for breach of its retrospective premium policy had accrued, an issue that has been addressed by only a handful of cases across the country. In light of the terms of the agreement between Griffin and Reliance, the magistrate rejected Reliance’s argument that the statute of limitations did not accrue until the final retrospective adjustment on its policy was rendered. Instead, the magistrate adopted the approach argued for by Griffin and applied in the majority of cases to address the issue--that, for statute of limitations purposes, each retrospective premium payment was a separate, enforceable obligation on which the statute of limitations accrued when it was invoiced and not paid. For a copy of the decision, click here.

Practice Areas

Criminal Defense / Employment Litigation / General Litigation / Insurance Coverage Litigation & Counseling

Our Locations

New York
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7612
New York, NY 10118
Tel. (212) 268-7111
Fax (212) 268-3110

Philadelphia
Constitution Place
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. (215) 625-0123
Fax (215) 625-0764