American Motorist Insurance v. Superior Acoustics Inc.

277 A.D.2d 97, 716 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 97 (American Motorist Insurance v. Superior Acoustics Inc.) 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
American Motorist Insurance v. Superior Acoustics Inc., 277 A.D.2d 97, 716 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 25, 1999, granting the motion of defendant Transamerica Insurance Company and the cross motion of defendants Superior Acoustics Inc. and Pacific Employers Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants-respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them in light of their submission of unrefuted evidence demonstrating that plaintiffs were not named as additional insured on the policies issued to [98]*98plaintiff Lehr’s subcontractors, and that there was no request on the part of the subcontractors to add plaintiffs as additional insureds. Plaintiffs’ submission of a certificate of insurance naming Lehr as an additional insured on the policy issued by Transamerica to co-defendant subcontractor Petrocelli Electric Company, Inc. and their reliance on a similar certificate allegedly issued by defendant Pacific to defendant Superior, which contained disclaimers that it was for information only, that it conferred no rights on the holder, that it did not amend, extend or alter the coverage provided by the policy and that it was subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of the policy, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs had been named as additional insureds under the subject policies (see, St. George v Barney Corp., 270 AD2d 171; Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assocs., 250 AD2d 466).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Sixty Sutton Corp. v. Illinois Union Insurance
34 A.D.3d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Moleon v. Kreisler Borg Florman General Construction Co.
304 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Glynn v. United House of Prayer for All People
292 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 97, 716 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-motorist-insurance-v-superior-acoustics-inc-nyappdiv-2000.