Two insurers are in federal court over who pays to defend New York State in a worker's injury case.
Admiral Insurance Company sued CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. on September 10, 2026, in the US District Court for the Western District of New York, asking a judge to declare that CUMIS must take over the State's defense as the primary insurer - the one that pays first - and repay the defense money Admiral has already spent.
Both companies insured the same roofing contractor, Elmer W. Davis, Inc. Admiral wrote the contractor's commercial general liability policy; CUMIS wrote its commercial auto policy. Under the contractor's contract with the State, the State was added to both policies as an additional insured - a party covered under someone else's policy - on a primary and noncontributory basis, meaning that coverage was meant to respond first, before any of the State's own insurance.
The underlying case involves a construction worker who, according to the complaint, alleges he was “struck in the head and neck by an unsecured, heavy bundle of insulation that fell” while unloading a truck at a Buffalo State College roofing project. He sued the State under New York Labor Law, and those claims remain unresolved.
Admiral says it first agreed to defend the State under its liability policy subject to a reservation of rights - defending while keeping the option to challenge coverage later. It then learned the loss involved a vehicle owned by the contractor and insured by CUMIS, and handed the defense to CUMIS as the auto insurer.
According to the complaint, CUMIS eventually acknowledged that the case “involves an auto liability rather than a CGL risk” and that the State is entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the auto policy. But CUMIS refused to repay Admiral's earlier defense costs, the filing says, characterizing those payments as “voluntary” and pointing to an auto exclusion in Admiral's liability policy.
CUMIS also said it would review whether Admiral had complied with a New York insurance-law provision on denying coverage, Section 3420(d)(2). Admiral counters in the filing that the provision does not apply between two insurers and that it never denied coverage - it defended the State throughout.
Admiral says it has run up $65,496.28 in defense costs. The CUMIS auto policy carries a $1 million liability limit, and the worker's medical costs stand at roughly $10,000, according to the complaint.
The complaint brings three counts, all seeking declarations: that CUMIS owes the State a defense on a primary and noncontributory basis; that CUMIS must indemnify the State on the same basis; and that CUMIS must reimburse Admiral through equitable subrogation - stepping into the State's shoes to recover what another insurer should have paid.
The allegations are untested, and no court has ruled on the claims.
