Legal Opinion
Millennium Holdings, LLC v. The Glidden Company
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 5, 2016No. 38PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Abdus-Salaam, J.
In this action, appellant insurance companies seek to be subrogated to the right of their insured, plaintiff Millennium Holdings LLC, to indemnification against respondents, the Glidden Company, now known as Akzo Nobel Paints LLC, following the insurance companies’ satisfaction of Millennium’s obligations pursuant to monetary settlements reached in certain lead paint related cases. The courts below, applying the antisubrogation rule, held that the insurance companies could not subrogate. We disagree, and hold that the antisubrogation rule does not apply in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pennsylvania General Insurance v. Austin Powder Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2006
- Elrac, Inc. v. WardNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Jefferson Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Millennium Holdings LLC v. Glidden Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Falco Constr. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 2016
- Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 2016
- Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Hoffman International, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2020
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.