Barry is a founding member of SKD. With 40 years of experience in all aspects of complex commercial practice, the current focus of his practice is insurance and reinsurance coverage and litigation. In addition to drafting insurance policies, reinsurance contracts, and related documents, he and the members of his practice group routinely counsel clients concerning insurance and reinsurance coverage matters, including those arising under professional liability, comprehensive general liability, directors’ and officers’ liability, and errors and omissions policies, and in multi-layered insurance programs. Barry is a creative problem-solver and, although his preference is to attempt to resolve insurance and reinsurance disputes, including bad faith claims, through negotiation, he is equally skilled at mediating, arbitrating, and litigating such matters.
In addition to his proficiency in handling insurance and reinsurance issues, Barry is an accomplished appellate attorney who handles appeals involving many and varied aspects of the law in state and federal appellate courts.
Barry G. Saretsky
Professional Recognition
▪ Peer Review AV Preeminent in Martendale-Hubbell
▪ Best’s Recommended Insurance Attorney
Professional Leadership
▪ American Bar Association ( Member, Insurance Practice Section, Insurance Litigation Section)
▪ New York State Bar Association (Member, Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law and Commercial and Federal Litigation
Sections; Member, Reinsurance and Insurance Coverage Disputes Committee)
▪ Defense Research Institute
▪ General Editor for Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, New York
Litigation Forms
Education
▪ Rutgers University School of Law, J.D., with honors, 1973
▪ Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, B.A. 1968
Bar Admissions
▪ New York, 1974
Court Admissions
▪ United States Supreme Court
▪ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
▪ United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
▪ United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
▪ United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
▪ United States District Court for the Western District of New York
REPORTED COURT DECISIONS
WCHCC (Bermuda) Limited v. Granite State Ins. Co., U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., 12-cv-00094 (VB), June 10, 2013 (insurer that issued an individual primary professional liability policy to hospital-insured nurse is obligated to pay the limit of its policy toward the sum paid by the hospital’s insurer to settle medical malpractice action on the nurse’s behalf, plus the portion of the defense costs allocated to the nurse)
Clark v. Ravikumar, 90 A.D.3d 971, 935 N.Y.S.2d 633 (2d Dep’t 2011) (operative report identified the physicians who participated in plaintiff’s surgery; it was not an “affirmative wrongdoing” that contributed to plaintiff’s delay in suing the hospital and the surgical resident and, as such, hospital and surgical resident were not estopped from asserting their statute of limitations defenses in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add them as defendants and plaintiff’s motion should have been denied)
Jones v. Radeker, 32 A.D.3d 494, 820 N.Y.S.2d 321 (2d Dep’t 2006) (setting aside as against the weight of the evidence a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff/driver; jury determined that driver was negligent in entering an intersection in violation of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, but that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident; plaintiff’s violation constituted negligence per se and was a proximate cause of the accident)
Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521 (2005) (insured property owner’s failure to timely notify its insurer of an accident in which a subcontractor’s employee was injured was not reasonably founded on a good-faith belief of nonliability; insurer granted summary judgment declaring that it is not required to defend or indemnify the insured)
Maldonado v. Kissm Realty Corporation, 18 A.D.3d 627, 796 N.Y.S.2d 619 (2d Dep’t 2005) (lessee’s general liability insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the building owner in a personal injury action by a worker who was allegedly injured while doing repairs to the building’s rooftop heating and ventilation units because the general liability policy stated that the owner was an additional insured with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the leased premises, and the lessee assumed a maintenance obligation with respect to the rooftop units)
Jamaica Public Service Co. Ltd. v. La Interamericana Compania De Seguros Generales S.A., et al., 1 A.D.3d 130, 767 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1st Dep’t 2003) (machinery breakdown insurers had no coverage obligation to electricity supplier for damage sustained by boiler; the evidence conclusively established that the dominant and efficient cause of the damage was the explosion of unconsumed fuel, which was a risk for which the all-risk insurers, but not the machinery breakdown insurers, provided coverage)
Lincolnshire Management, Inc. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., 2002 WL 31058285 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. 2002) (affirming judgment in insurer's favor, holding that insurer's disclaimer was proper under New York law because insured's notice of claim was late and no evidence supported insured's claim that it had a valid excuse for the delay)
Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. v. Lincolnshire Management, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 274, 703 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1st Dep’t 2000) (rejecting the “natural plaintiff” theory in New York and holding that New York is not an inconvenient forum in which insurer could litigate the parties’ coverage dispute)
MIC Property and Casualty Insurance Corporation v. Custom Craftsman of Brooklyn, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 333, 703 N.Y.S.2d 179 (1st Dep’t 2000) (dismissing insurance coverage action brought by party claiming to be additional insured)
The Brooklyn Hospital Center v. Centennial Ins. Co., 258 A.D.2d 491, 685 N.Y.S.2d 267 (2d Dep’t 1999) (although medical treatment did not take place during insurer’s policy period, insurer was estopped from disclaiming coverage after defending the hospital in medical malpractice action for 11 years without a reservation of rights)
Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., 1995 WL 733642, S.D.N.Y. (letter agreement was an alternative contract whose obligations became fixed when reinsurer exercised its one-time choice between alternative methods of performance; as such, cedant was not obligated to accept the substitution of insurance for a letter of credit as security for the reinsurer’s obligations)
Amodei v. New York State Chiropractic Assn., 77 N.Y.2d 890, 568 N.Y.S.2d 909 (1991) (dismissal of defamation action upon ground that statement is constitutionally protected expression of opinion)
Technicon Electronics Corp. v. American Home Assurance Company, 141 A.D.2d 124, 533 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2d Dep’t 1988), aff’d 74 N.Y.2d 66, 544 N.Y.S.2d 531 (1989) (establishing applicability of standard pollution exclusion to environmental pollution claims)
Hickey v. Peninsula Hospital Center, 135 A.D.2d 781, 522 N.Y.S.2d 893 (2d Dep’t 1987) (dismissing wrongful termination claims of at-will hospital employee because, at best for plaintiff, statements contained in hospital’s personnel policy and procedural manual constituted general policy statements and supervisory guidelines and did not indicate that plaintiff’s employment was subject to termination for just and sufficient cause only)
Evanston Insurance Company v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 132 A.D.2d 180, 521 N.Y.S.2d 692 (1st Dep’t 1987) (30-day notice of deficiency received by insured from a disgruntled client and furnished to the insured’s prior errors and omissions insurer did not constitute the assertion of a legally cognizable claim that could be defended, settled and paid; within the meaning of the prior insurer’s claims-made policy, therefore, there was no “claim” made against the insured during its policy period and, as such, the prior insurer was not obligated to indemnify or defend the insured for the claims that were later asserted against it)
Parks v. Steinbrenner, 131 A.D.2d 60, 520 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1st Dep’t 1987) (major league baseball team owner’s statement concerning umpire was constitutionally protected expression of opinion, requiring dismissal of umpire’s defamation action)
