Andoh v. Milano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andoh v. Milano

11 A.D.3d 241, 783 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11675

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 241 (Andoh v. Milano) 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

Andoh v. Milano, 11 A.D.3d 241, 783 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered September 18, 2003, which, in a third-party action involving insurance coverage of a leased truck, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, inter alia, declared that the lessee’s policy is primary and the lessor’s policy is excess, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The lessee’s $1 million policy plainly states that it is primary insurance for any vehicles leased by the named insured, i.e., the lessee, from the additional insured, i.e., the lessor. In contrast, the lessor’s policy, which insures the lessor for $1 million and the lessee in the “step-down” amount of $10,000, plainly states that it is to be excess of any other collectible insurance obtained for the lessor’s benefit pursuant to a lease agreement. Thus, the plain terms of the two policies show a clear intent that the lessee’s policy is to be primary (see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 65 NY2d 369, 373 [1985]). Since the lessee’s policy is primary, the lessor’s insurer is not responsible even for the [242]*242$10,000 step-down amount. The lessor is not relying on the indemnification clause, which, if invoked, would require the lessor’s payment of the statutory minimum (see ELRAC, Inc. v Ward, 96 NY2d 58 [2001]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered September 18, 2003, which, in a third-party action involving insurance coverage of a leased truck, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, inter alia, declared that the lessee’s policy is primary and the lessor’s policy is excess, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The lessee’s $1 million policy plainly states that it is primary insurance for any vehicles leased by the named insured, i.e., the lessee, from the additional insured, i.e., the lessor. In contrast, the lessor’s policy, which insures the lessor for $1 million and the lessee in the “step-down” amount of $10,000, plainly states that it is to be excess of any other collectible insurance obtained for the lessor’s benefit pursuant to a lease agreement. Thus, the plain terms of the two policies show a clear intent that the lessee’s policy is to be primary (see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 65 NY2d 369, 373 [1985]). Since the lessee’s policy is primary, the lessor’s insurer is not responsible even for the [242]*242$10,000 step-down amount. The lessor is not relying on the indemnification clause, which, if invoked, would require the lessor’s payment of the statutory minimum (see ELRAC, Inc. v Ward, 96 NY2d 58 [2001]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 241, 783 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andoh-v-milano-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack