Essex Insurance v. Zwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Essex Insurance v. Zwick

27 A.D.3d 1092, 811 N.Y.S.2d 831

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1092 (Essex Insurance v. Zwick) 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

Essex Insurance v. Zwick, 27 A.D.3d 1092, 811 N.Y.S.2d 831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J), entered September 7, 2004. The order, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judgment declaring that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants T-Birds Nightclub and Restaurant, Inc. (T-Birds), AGA Development Corp. and Kenneth Holdsworth in a personal injury action commenced against them by defendant Andrew Zwick. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment. The commercial general liability policy issued to T-Birds by plaintiff provides coverage for bodily injury caused by an “occurrence,” which is defined as “an accident.” “[F]rom the point of view of [T-Birds,] the insured” (Miller v Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675, 677 [1976]), the incident resulting in injury to Zwick “was unexpected, unusual or unforeseen” (American Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead, v Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 265 AD2d 49, 53 [2000]; see Agoado Realty Corp. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 95 NY2d 141, 145 [2000]), and thus falls within the policy’s coverage for claims of bodily injury arising out of an accidental occurrence (see Penn-America Group v Zoobar, Inc., 305 AD2d 1116, 1117 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 511 [2003]; see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Ho, 289 AD2d 1051 [2001]). Further, plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that the assault and/or battery exclusion applies to the conduct of Holdsworth, a bouncer employed by T-Birds, in restraining [1093]*1093Zwick (see Anastasis v American Safety Indem. Co., 12 AD3d 628, 630 [2004]; Essex Ins. Co. v T-Birds Nightclub & Rest., 229 AD2d 919, 920 [1996]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the assault and/or battery exclusion applies, however, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that its delay in providing notice of disclaimer of coverage was reasonable (see generally Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v Pistilli, 16 AD3d 477, 479 [2005]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. [Morel], 202 AD2d 1064 [1994). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J), entered September 7, 2004. The order, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judgment declaring that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants T-Birds Nightclub and Restaurant, Inc. (T-Birds), AGA Development Corp. and Kenneth Holdsworth in a personal injury action commenced against them by defendant Andrew Zwick. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment. The commercial general liability policy issued to T-Birds by plaintiff provides coverage for bodily injury caused by an “occurrence,” which is defined as “an accident.” “[F]rom the point of view of [T-Birds,] the insured” (Miller v Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675, 677 [1976]), the incident resulting in injury to Zwick “was unexpected, unusual or unforeseen” (American Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead, v Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 265 AD2d 49, 53 [2000]; see Agoado Realty Corp. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 95 NY2d 141, 145 [2000]), and thus falls within the policy’s coverage for claims of bodily injury arising out of an accidental occurrence (see Penn-America Group v Zoobar, Inc., 305 AD2d 1116, 1117 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 511 [2003]; see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Ho, 289 AD2d 1051 [2001]). Further, plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that the assault and/or battery exclusion applies to the conduct of Holdsworth, a bouncer employed by T-Birds, in restraining [1093]*1093Zwick (see Anastasis v American Safety Indem. Co., 12 AD3d 628, 630 [2004]; Essex Ins. Co. v T-Birds Nightclub & Rest., 229 AD2d 919, 920 [1996]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the assault and/or battery exclusion applies, however, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that its delay in providing notice of disclaimer of coverage was reasonable (see generally Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v Pistilli, 16 AD3d 477, 479 [2005]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. [Morel], 202 AD2d 1064 [1994). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1092, 811 N.Y.S.2d 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essex-insurance-v-zwick-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack