IBEX Construction, LLC v. Utica National Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

IBEX Construction, LLC v. Utica National Assurance Co.

57 A.D.3d 245, 868 N.Y.2d 652

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 245 (IBEX Construction, LLC v. Utica National Assurance Co.) 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

IBEX Construction, LLC v. Utica National Assurance Co., 57 A.D.3d 245, 868 N.Y.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The allegations in the personal injury complaint, and the subsequent trial thereof, make clear that the plaintiff in the underlying action claimed he fell from an improperly secured ladder provided by his employer, defendant’s insured and a subcontractor of IBEX. In a post-trial appeal, this Court held that IBEX was liable to the employee, pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Bradley v IBEX Constr., LLC, 54 AD3d 626, 627 [2008]). Thus, IBEX is an additional insured as defined by the policy, i.e., one “held liable for [the insured’s] acts or omissions arising out of . . . ongoing operations performed by [the insured] or [its] subcontractors” (see BP A.C. Corp. v One Beacon Ins. Group, 8 NY3d 708, 714 [2007]). Defendant’s duty to defend IBEX was triggered by the allegations in the underlying complaint, which brought the claims potentially within the scope of coverage (id). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

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

The allegations in the personal injury complaint, and the subsequent trial thereof, make clear that the plaintiff in the underlying action claimed he fell from an improperly secured ladder provided by his employer, defendant’s insured and a subcontractor of IBEX. In a post-trial appeal, this Court held that IBEX was liable to the employee, pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Bradley v IBEX Constr., LLC, 54 AD3d 626, 627 [2008]). Thus, IBEX is an additional insured as defined by the policy, i.e., one “held liable for [the insured’s] acts or omissions arising out of . . . ongoing operations performed by [the insured] or [its] subcontractors” (see BP A.C. Corp. v One Beacon Ins. Group, 8 NY3d 708, 714 [2007]). Defendant’s duty to defend IBEX was triggered by the allegations in the underlying complaint, which brought the claims potentially within the scope of coverage (id). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 245, 868 N.Y.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibex-construction-llc-v-utica-national-assurance-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack