(Article from Insurance Law Alert, December 2025)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Holding
Insurers that issued primary and excess policies allegedly covering sexual abuse claims against church officials and organizations must produce reinsurance agreements to the insured entities. Archdiocese of N.Y. v. Century Indem. Co., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Nov. 20, 2025).
Background
Thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits were filed against the Archdiocese of New York. In the coverage disputes that ensued, several insurers initially agreed to defend the suits under a reservation of rights, but subsequently denied coverage based on the “expected and/or intended” injuries alleged in the suits.
The insurers sought a declaration of no coverage. During discovery, the insured entities sought to compel production of reinsurance agreements between their primary and excess insurers and reinsurers. A Special Discovery Master granted the motion. See Referee Decision & Order, Century Indem. Co. v. Archdiocese of N.Y., et al., No.652825/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 11, 2025).
Decision
Affirming the ruling, the Appellate Division held that reinsurance agreements are subject to automatic disclosure under CPLR 3101(f). The court explained that “any insurance agreement” in that provision includes reinsurance agreements, stating “[i]f the legislature wished to exclude reinsurance agreements from CPLR 3010(f), it could have done so explicitly.” Further, “the legislature’s failure to add a straightforward exclusion when it amended CPLR 3101(f) . . . is strong evidence that it did not disagree with the conclusion of those courts that reinsurance agreements were included within the scope of CPLR 3101(f).”
Comments
An important distinction exists between reinsurance agreements and other reinsurance-related material, such as reserve information or communications between a reinsurer and its cedent. The discoverability of the latter category may be subject to more scrutiny in the context of motions to compel.
Indeed, the Special Discovery Master in this case denied the Archdiocese’s motion to compel production of material in the reinsurance claim files and communications with the reinsurers on the basis that the discovery requests were overbroad, and that the material was arguably protected work product and/or irrelevant to the coverage dispute.