Allendale Mutual Insurance Company v. Excess Insurance Co. Limited

992 F. Supp. 278 (1998)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Allendale Mutual Insurance Company v. Excess Insurance Co. Limited

 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
992 F. Supp. 278 (1998)

  • Written by Genan Zilkha, JD

Facts

Allendale Mutual Insurance Company (Allendale) (plaintiff) is an insurance company. Excess Insurance Co. Limited and other reinsurers (defendants) are reinsurers. An Allendale subsidiary issued an insurance policy for a warehouse owned by Zenith Data Systems France (ZDSF) and Zenith Data Service Europe (ZDSE) to ZDSF and ZDSE for $48 million. Allendale sought reinsurance for all but $2.5 million of this policy. The defendants entered into a reinsurance agreement covering January 1, 1991–January 1, 1992 by initialing a slip. The slip indicated that the warehouse did not have sprinklers. The expiration of this first agreement was changed to June 1, 1991. The defendants added a handwritten note stating that the agreement was subject to recommendations. The warehouse was surveyed by an engineer. The engineer produced a report containing six recommendations, including that the warehouse should be provided with automatic-sprinkler protection according to Allendale’s subsidiary’s requirements. The defendants did not request a copy of this report, and Allendale did not provide the defendants with a copy of this report. ZDSF and ZDSE noted that they would not make most of the recommended changes, including installing sprinklers. Allendale and the defendants executed a new agreement on June 1, 1991. In this agreement, the non-sprinkler disclosure was included, but the clause stating that the agreement was subject to recommendations was not. Allendale did not include a copy of the survey report. The warehouse was subsequently destroyed in a fire. The defendants attempted to rescind the reinsurance agreement because, they claimed, their performance was excused by Allendale’s failure to disclose the unresolved engineer’s report recommendations. Allendale sued the defendants.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scheindlin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership