Illinois Union Insurance v. Assurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Illinois Union Insurance v. Assurance Co. of America

86 A.D.3d 501, 927 N.Y.2d 339

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.3d 501 (Illinois Union Insurance v. Assurance Co. of America) 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 Union Insurance v. Assurance Co. of America, 86 A.D.3d 501, 927 N.Y.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinions

Under California law, which the parties agree governs this action, whether the plaintiff in the underlying action was an “Employee” under the Illinois Union policy is a dispositive issue; if the plaintiff was an employee, then Illinois Union had the duty to defend, but if the plaintiff was not an employee, Illinois Union had no such duty, and thus would be entitled to full reimbursement (see County of San Bernardino v Pacific Indem. Co., 56 Cal App 4th 666, 680, 65 Cal Rptr 2d 657, 665 [1997], Iv denied 1997 Cal LEXIS 6282 [1997]; Devin v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 6 Cal App 4th 1149, 1157, 8 Cal Rptr 2d 263, 268-269 [1992], Iv denied 1992 Cal LEXIS 4241 [1992]). The record establishes that Cronnelly, the plaintiff in the underlying action, was not an “Employee” within the definition of Illinois Union’s policy.

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, Catterson and Richter, JJ.

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

Under California law, which the parties agree governs this action, whether the plaintiff in the underlying action was an “Employee” under the Illinois Union policy is a dispositive issue; if the plaintiff was an employee, then Illinois Union had the duty to defend, but if the plaintiff was not an employee, Illinois Union had no such duty, and thus would be entitled to full reimbursement (see County of San Bernardino v Pacific Indem. Co., 56 Cal App 4th 666, 680, 65 Cal Rptr 2d 657, 665 [1997], Iv denied 1997 Cal LEXIS 6282 [1997]; Devin v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 6 Cal App 4th 1149, 1157, 8 Cal Rptr 2d 263, 268-269 [1992], Iv denied 1992 Cal LEXIS 4241 [1992]). The record establishes that Cronnelly, the plaintiff in the underlying action, was not an “Employee” within the definition of Illinois Union’s policy.

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, Catterson and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.3d 501, 927 N.Y.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-union-insurance-v-assurance-co-of-america-nyappdiv-2011.