State v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

Mikoll and Levine, JJ.,

concur in part and dissent in part in the following memorandum by Mikoll, J. Mikoll, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). We agree with the result reached by the majority in relation to defendant Merchants. However, in our view, Special Term properly dismissed the State’s action against defendant Travelers on the ground there was no privity between the two. Although both insurers had an independent duty to represent Sinnamon, it does not follow that Travelers had any obligation to the State for breach of that duty owed to Sinnamon. Plaintiff was not a named…