Illinois National Insurance v. American Alternative Insurance

58 A.D.3d 537, 872 N.Y.S.2d 26
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 537 (Illinois National Insurance v. American Alternative 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
Illinois National Insurance v. American Alternative Insurance, 58 A.D.3d 537, 872 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment and, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered May 9, 2007, denying plaintiffs’ motion and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The insurance contract issued by defendant to the nonparty asbestos abatement subcontractor includes as an insured “any [538]*538person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy.” Plaintiffs concede that the subcontractor’s contract with the city plaintiffs’ general contractor does not contain an agreement that the city parties be named as additional insureds. Contrary to their contention, the provision in the bid documents of plaintiff New York City School Construction Authority stating that the performance of asbestos abatement work “shall be governed by” certain terms and conditions, among which was a requirement to name the city plaintiffs as additional insureds, does not constitute an “agree[ment] [between the subcontractor and the city plaintiffs] in writing in a contract or agreement that [the latter] be added as an additional insured on [the former’s] policy.”

The certificate of insurance generated by the subcontractor’s broker, by its terms, confers no rights upon the certificate holder (see Moleon v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 304 AD2d 337, 339 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catter-son and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Related

Lexington Ins. Co. v. Kiska Dev. Group LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 2253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
School Construction Consultants, Inc. v. ARA Plumbing & Heating Corp.
63 A.D.3d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 537, 872 N.Y.S.2d 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-national-insurance-v-american-alternative-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.