Inc. Village of Great Neck Estates v. National Union Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inc. Village of Great Neck Estates v. National Union Fire Insurance

184 A.D.2d 496, 584 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622

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

DecidedJune 1, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 496 (Inc. Village of Great Neck Estates v. National Union Fire 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

Inc. Village of Great Neck Estates v. National Union Fire Insurance, 184 A.D.2d 496, 584 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for, inter alia, a judgment declaring the rights and duties of the parties with respect to an insurance policy issued by the defendant National Casualty [497]*497Company, the plaintiffs Kevin Kely and the Incorporated Village of Great Neck Estates appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated August 21, 1990, which (1) adjudged that the National Casualty Company had no obligation to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs under an insurance policy in an action pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled Sefcik v Village of Great Neck Estates, and (2) dismissed the action against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In this action for a declaration as to the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy, the plaintiffs contend that the court erred in finding that the National Casualty Company did not have a duty to defend them. We find that none of the claims brought against the plaintiffs by Carol H. Sefcik individually and as administratrix of her husband’s estate were covered by the insurance policy in question.

The insurance policy at issue here, a comprehensive law enforcement liability policy, contained a provision stating that the policy did not obligate the respondent insurance company to defend actions concerning "personal injury, bodily injury or property damage sustained by any paid full time or part time and/or auxiliary or volunteer law enforcement officer”. The allegations asserted against the plaintiffs are based on the injuries suffered by Sergeant Sefcik, a law enforcement officer who committed suicide and thus are entirely within this provision. Thus, the National Casualty Company has demonstrated that it does not have a duty to defend the plaintiffs (see, Meyers & Sons Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Group, 74 NY2d 298; cf., Ingber v Home Ins. Co., 140 AD2d 750). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for, inter alia, a judgment declaring the rights and duties of the parties with respect to an insurance policy issued by the defendant National Casualty [497]*497Company, the plaintiffs Kevin Kely and the Incorporated Village of Great Neck Estates appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated August 21, 1990, which (1) adjudged that the National Casualty Company had no obligation to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs under an insurance policy in an action pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled Sefcik v Village of Great Neck Estates, and (2) dismissed the action against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In this action for a declaration as to the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to an insurance policy, the plaintiffs contend that the court erred in finding that the National Casualty Company did not have a duty to defend them. We find that none of the claims brought against the plaintiffs by Carol H. Sefcik individually and as administratrix of her husband’s estate were covered by the insurance policy in question.

The insurance policy at issue here, a comprehensive law enforcement liability policy, contained a provision stating that the policy did not obligate the respondent insurance company to defend actions concerning "personal injury, bodily injury or property damage sustained by any paid full time or part time and/or auxiliary or volunteer law enforcement officer”. The allegations asserted against the plaintiffs are based on the injuries suffered by Sergeant Sefcik, a law enforcement officer who committed suicide and thus are entirely within this provision. Thus, the National Casualty Company has demonstrated that it does not have a duty to defend the plaintiffs (see, Meyers & Sons Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Group, 74 NY2d 298; cf., Ingber v Home Ins. Co., 140 AD2d 750). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 496, 584 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inc-village-of-great-neck-estates-v-national-union-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack