915 2nd Pub, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

915 2nd Pub, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 19, 146 A.D.3d 415, 44 N.Y.S.3d 42

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 2017

Docket2611 604047/07

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 19 (915 2nd Pub, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

915 2nd Pub, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 19, 146 A.D.3d 415, 44 N.Y.S.3d 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment as to liability on the first cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, defendant’s motion granted, and plaintiffs’ motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

After excavation work on the adjacent property caused structural damage to plaintiffs’ building, plaintiffs both submitted an insurance claim to defendant and negotiated a sale of the property to the owner of the adjacent property, i.e., the tortfeasor. The purchaser paid what its principal called “a crazy price for the property value” in the acknowledged hope of disposing of all liability arising from the excavation damage. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover payment under the insurance policy.

By selling the damaged building to the entity that damaged it, plaintiffs violated the terms of the policy that required them to “do everything necessary to secure” and “do nothing after loss to impair” defendant’s subrogation rights, i.e., defendant’s right to pursue any claim that plaintiffs had against the *416 tortfeasor (see Chemical Bank v Meltzer, 93 NY2d 296, 304 [1999]). Thus, defendant is not required to pay plaintiffs’ claim (Tropic Pollo I Corp. v Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., Inc., 818 F Supp 2d 559, 562 [ED NY 2011]).

The sale of the building also violated plaintiffs’ obligation to cooperate with defendant in its investigation of their claim (see e.g. Somerstein Caterers of Lawrence v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 262 AD2d 252 [1st Dept 1999]). Immediately after the sale, the purchaser demolished the building, leaving nothing to investigate, at a time when the parties had yet to reach an agreement on the amount to be paid under the policy.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment as to liability on the first cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, defendant’s motion granted, and plaintiffs’ motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

After excavation work on the adjacent property caused structural damage to plaintiffs’ building, plaintiffs both submitted an insurance claim to defendant and negotiated a sale of the property to the owner of the adjacent property, i.e., the tortfeasor. The purchaser paid what its principal called “a crazy price for the property value” in the acknowledged hope of disposing of all liability arising from the excavation damage. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover payment under the insurance policy.

By selling the damaged building to the entity that damaged it, plaintiffs violated the terms of the policy that required them to “do everything necessary to secure” and “do nothing after loss to impair” defendant’s subrogation rights, i.e., defendant’s right to pursue any claim that plaintiffs had against the *416 tortfeasor (see Chemical Bank v Meltzer, 93 NY2d 296, 304 [1999]). Thus, defendant is not required to pay plaintiffs’ claim (Tropic Pollo I Corp. v Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., Inc., 818 F Supp 2d 559, 562 [ED NY 2011]).

The sale of the building also violated plaintiffs’ obligation to cooperate with defendant in its investigation of their claim (see e.g. Somerstein Caterers of Lawrence v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 262 AD2d 252 [1st Dept 1999]). Immediately after the sale, the purchaser demolished the building, leaving nothing to investigate, at a time when the parties had yet to reach an agreement on the amount to be paid under the policy.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 19, 146 A.D.3d 415, 44 N.Y.S.3d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/915-2nd-pub-inc-v-qbe-insurance-corp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack