Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 SEPTEMBER 2015

Another State Court Limits The Enforceability Of Anti-Assignment Clauses

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

Most jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have adopted the general common law rule applied in Givaudan.

United StatesInsurance

We recently wrote about the California Supreme Court's decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court to limit the enforceability of clauses in third party liability insurance policies that prohibit the policyholder from assigning its interests in the policy without the insurer's prior consent. The court held that these so-called anti-assignment clauses are not enforceable after a third party has suffered personal injury or property damage covered under the policy and for which the insured may be liable. A New Jersey appellate court has reached the same conclusion in Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. There, Givaudan Fragrances Corporation sought coverage under a corporate affiliate's insurance policies for numerous claims brought against Givaudan for environmental contamination. The appellate court concluded that the policies' anti-assignment clause was no longer enforceable as to the losses that had occurred before the assignment.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from