Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

303 A.D.2d 296, 756 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 296 (Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance v. Public Service Mutual Insurance) 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

Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance v. Public Service Mutual Insurance, 303 A.D.2d 296, 756 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2002, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Public Service Mutual Insurance Company and the cross motion of plaintiff Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint as against it.

The language of the original policy and renewals thereto issued by defendant insurer unambiguously name only one additional insured, the landlord of the property located at 408 East 64th Street; the policy and renewals do not name the landlord of the property located at 280 Bleecker Street, where the underlying accident occurred. Therefore, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for defendant’s alleged wrongful refusal to defend and indemnify the landlord of 280 Bleecker Street under the subject policy. Even if the policy could be construed as unclear, the extrinsic evidence, consisting of the deposition testimony of principals or employees of the named insureds, their insurance broker, and defendant insurance company, as well as the broker’s contemporaneous documents, conclusively establish that there was never an agreement to name the landlord of 280 Bleecker Street as an additional insured (see Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 43-45 [1999]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2002, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Public Service Mutual Insurance Company and the cross motion of plaintiff Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint as against it.

The language of the original policy and renewals thereto issued by defendant insurer unambiguously name only one additional insured, the landlord of the property located at 408 East 64th Street; the policy and renewals do not name the landlord of the property located at 280 Bleecker Street, where the underlying accident occurred. Therefore, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for defendant’s alleged wrongful refusal to defend and indemnify the landlord of 280 Bleecker Street under the subject policy. Even if the policy could be construed as unclear, the extrinsic evidence, consisting of the deposition testimony of principals or employees of the named insureds, their insurance broker, and defendant insurance company, as well as the broker’s contemporaneous documents, conclusively establish that there was never an agreement to name the landlord of 280 Bleecker Street as an additional insured (see Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 43-45 [1999]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 296, 756 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ace-fire-underwriters-insurance-v-public-service-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack