K2 Investment Group, LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance
21 N.Y.3d 384, 993 N.E.2d 1249 (2013)
Rule of Law:
An insurer that breaches its duty to defend its insured cannot later rely on policy exclusions to avoid its duty to indemnify the insured for a resulting judgment.
Facts:
- Two limited liability companies (Plaintiffs) loaned $2.83 million to Goldan, LLC.
- Jeffrey Daniels, a lawyer and principal of Goldan, allegedly acted as the Plaintiffs' attorney for the loan transaction.
- The loans were intended to be secured by mortgages, but Daniels failed to record them.
- Goldan defaulted on the loans, and Plaintiffs discovered their security interests were never perfected.
- Daniels was insured under a legal malpractice policy issued by American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company.
- When Plaintiffs sued Daniels for malpractice, he notified American Guarantee.
- American Guarantee denied coverage and refused to provide a defense, stating the claims were not based on Daniels rendering legal services for others.
- After the denial, Daniels rejected a settlement offer from Plaintiffs for $450,000, which was well within his $2 million policy limit.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Jeffrey Daniels in a New York trial court (Supreme Court) for legal malpractice.
- After American Guarantee refused to defend him, a default judgment was entered against Daniels for an amount exceeding his policy limit.
- Daniels assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs, as assignees, sued American Guarantee in Supreme Court for breach of contract and bad faith.
- The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the breach of contract claim, holding American Guarantee liable up to the policy limit, and dismissed the bad faith claim.
- American Guarantee (appellant) appealed the contract ruling to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, with a two-justice dissent.
- American Guarantee appealed to the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) based on the dissent, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of their bad faith claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurer that wrongfully breaches its duty to defend an insured forfeit the right to later argue that policy exclusions negate its duty to indemnify for a judgment entered against the insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes. An insurer that wrongfully breaches its duty to defend forfeits the right to later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify. The court reasoned that the duty to defend is 'exceedingly broad' and is triggered whenever the allegations in a complaint suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage. By choosing to breach this duty without first seeking a declaratory judgment to clarify its obligations, an insurer takes the risk that it will be bound by the outcome of the underlying action. The court held that once an insurer's disclaimer of its duty to defend is found to be wrongful, it may only litigate the validity of that disclaimer and cannot later raise policy exclusions to challenge its indemnity obligation. To allow otherwise would be unfair to insureds and would encourage wasteful litigation.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, pro-insured precedent in insurance law, effectively creating an estoppel rule. It raises the stakes for insurers who disclaim their duty to defend by taking away their 'second bite at the apple'—arguing policy exclusions after a judgment is entered. This holding strongly incentivizes insurers to defend under a reservation of rights or to seek a declaratory judgment when coverage is questionable, rather than unilaterally denying a defense. Consequently, this reinforces the breadth of the duty to defend and ensures insureds receive the full benefit of their insurance contract.
