INSURED’S “FOLLOW-THE-FORTUNES” ARGUMENT FALLS SHORT
This breach of contract case arose out of a dispute between insurer-plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg (“NU”) and its reinsurer-defendant, Clearwater Insurance Company (“Clearwater”). NU alleged that Clearwater breached its reinsurance agreement by failing to fully indemnify it for losses incurred from the settlement of an underlying dispute. While Clearwater paid for roughly ¼ of the $1.9 million dollars sought by NU, Clearwater claimed it was not responsible for the remaining amount since some portion of the settlement payment was to settle consequential damages claims not covered by the reinsurance certificates. In response, NU asserted the “follow-the-fortunes” doctrine and moved for summary judgment. Clearwater moved to compel additional discovery.
The Court denied NU’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that “a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the settlement did indeed involve payment in some substantial amount of the consequential damages claims. . ..” The Court appear to accept that if it could be proven that a portion of the payment was for losses not covered by the reinsurance agreement, that the follow-the-fortunes doctrine would not apply to those amounts. The Court granted in part and denied in part Clearwater’s request for additional discovery. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., Case No. 04-CV-5032 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2007).
