pro rata clause in New York

6 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1937–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sport Rock International, Inc. v. American Casualty Co.green nyappdiv · 2009 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025 2 sentences 2025Co. of Reading, Pa. , 65 AD3d 12,19 [1st Dept 2009], appeal withdrawn 14 NY3d 796 [2010]). 2025Co. of Reading, Pa. , 65 AD3d 12,19 [1st Dept 2009], appeal withdrawn 14 NY3d 796 [2010]).	1	2
Jones v. Medox, Inc.green dc · 1981 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009The policy containing the excess clause, however, is not considered to be other valid and collectible primary insurance for the purpose of triggering the operation of the pro rata clause, because when a stated contingency occurs, that is, when there is other valid and collectible primary insurance available to the insured, the policy containing the excess clause becomes secondary coverage only” (Jones v Medox, Inc., 430 A2d 488, 491 [DC 1981]).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
MATTER OF WILEY v. Dawson neutral ny · 2010 2 sentences 2025Co. of Reading, Pa. , 65 AD3d 12,19 [1st Dept 2009], appeal withdrawn 14 NY3d 796 [2010]). 2025Co. of Reading, Pa. , 65 AD3d 12,19 [1st Dept 2009], appeal withdrawn 14 NY3d 796 [2010]).	1	2025–2025
QBE Insurance v. Public Service Mutual Insurance green nyappdiv · 2013 1 sentence 2014Co., 102 AD3d 442 , 443 [1st Dept 2013].) “The reasoning behind the rule is that, because a pro rata clause applies only in the presence of other primary insurance, there is no conflict between a primary policy containing a pro rata clause and a second primary policy containing an excess clause rending the latter excess to other primary insurance.” (Sport Rock Intl., Inc. v American Cas.	1	2014–2014
GEN. ACC. FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP. v. Piazza green ny · 1958 1 sentence 2009Corp. v Piazza, 4 NY2d 659 , 669 [1958]; Harleysville Ins.	1	2009–2009
Insurance Co. of North America v. Fire Insurance Exchange green texapp · 1975 1 sentence 1978Exch., 525 SW2d 44 [Tex]; 16 Couch, Insurance [2d ed], § 62:157, pp 568-569).	1	1978–1978
Continental Insurance v. Commercial Union Insurance green nyappdiv · 1967 1 sentence 1976Co., 27 AD2d 333 .) It is clear that the interests of the plaintiff, as contractor, and the City of New York, as mortgagee, are not identical and that the existence of valid coverage for the mortgagee will not make the pro rata clause applicable.	1	1976–1976
Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Niagara neutral nysupct · 1832 1 sentence 1937(Stafford v. Van Rensselaer, supra; Mechanics’ Bank v. Bank of Niagara, supra.) The pro rata rule is not applicable where the equities of the situation require that one party be preferred over another as where a trust relationship or that of debtor *426 and creditor exists.	1	1937–1937

Where else courts name it

LA 13 (1967–2018) MI 12 (1922–2022) NJ 12 (1959–2018) TX 11 (1925–2023) IA 10 (1928–1993) IL 10 (1911–2007) CA 8 (1956–2003) MD 7 (1966–1993) MN 6 (1917–1994) NY 6 (1937–2025) WA 6 (1965–2011) OK 5 (1928–1996) WI 4 (1968–2020) SC 4 (1973–2013) PA 4 (1932–1953) MO 4 (1923–2011) RI 4 (1992–2012) TN 3 (1915–1996) IN 3 (1991–2007) KS 3 (1981–2005) FL 3 (1963–2010) GA 3 (1917–1964) DC 2 (1981–1999) MA 2 (1988–2015) DE 2 (1995–2014) AR 2 (1913–1939) CO 2 (1972–1993)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check