Opinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
Inasmuch as loss allocation is the primary matter of concern in this dispute involving a reinsurance policy, the IAS Court properly applied the grouping of contacts choice of law theory in deciding that New York law controls (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 N.Y.2d 219, 226), giving appropriate weight to the place of execution. The British contacts, including negotiation of the policy in London, were all by third parties, mostly the brokers. While we agree with defendant that the policy itself is ambiguous, plaintiff's extrinsic evidence of an agreement by defendant's predecessor to be individually liable for claims made by plaintiff's liquidatees suffices, prima facie, to establish defendant as a "fronter", and was not met by countervailing evidence in support of defendant's position to the contrary.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.