On June 16, 2022, in First State Insurance Company v. Columbia Casualty Company, et al.,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a decision in favor of Fireman’s Fund, an excess insurer, affirming that it was not required to pay asbestos claims under an excess policy issued to an asbestos

Michael Kotula, Larry Levy, and Siobhain Minarovich recently obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Court ruled that our client, an excess insurer, did not have to “drop down” and provide coverage in place of an underlying insolvent insurer.

The insured argued that our client had to pay

Today, New York’s Third Department, Appellate Division affirmed an award of summary judgment dismissing third-party claims for contribution against two Fireman’s Fund insurance companies, American Automobile Insurance Co. and National Surety Corp. The decision makes New York’s late notice “no-prejudice” rule, which requires no showing of prejudice to an insurer in a late notice situation,

Uniondale, New York – April 25, 2019 – The prestigious Chambers USA Directory has once again included Rivkin Radler LLP in its New York rankings.  The firm’s Insurance Coverage Practice Group is ranked in Band 3 in the Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer category and its Health Services Practice Group ranked in Band 4 in the

In an action brought by a successive insurer for contribution against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company to pay for pollution cleanup costs for a gasoline release from an underground storage tank at a gasoline service station, Michael Kotula, Larry Levy and Robert Maloney won summary judgment dismissing all claims against Fireman’s Fund with prejudice.

After the

Members of the firm’s Insurance Coverage & Litigation practice group, Michael Kotula, Peter McNamara, Lawrence Levy and Robert Maloney obtained a favorable decision in Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., C.A. No. N10C-07-241 MMJ (Del. Super. Ct. New Castle Cty. Jan. 21, 2014).  The case involves excess insurance policies with a defense cost