Inner City Redevelopment Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inner City Redevelopment Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.

78 A.D.3d 613, 913 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2010 NY Slip Op 8798, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8908

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 613 (Inner City Redevelopment Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.) 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

Inner City Redevelopment Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., 78 A.D.3d 613, 913 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2010 NY Slip Op 8798, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Thyssenkrupp has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action and in addition declared that said defendant is obligated to indemnify plaintiff for up to $1.25 million, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As defendant Thyssenkrupp is not an insurer, its duty to defend its contractual indemnitee is no broader than its duty to indemnify (Bellefleur v Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 AD3d 807, 809 [2009]). The contract limits the indemnity to losses caused in whole or in part by defendant’s negligence. Because there has been no showing that defendant was negligent, any order requiring defendant to defend or indemnify is premature (see Francescon v Gucci Am., Inc., 71 AD3d 528 [2010]).

However, the contract contains a promise by defendant not only to indemnify, but also to procure insurance that fully covers the scope of the indemnity. The policy that defendant obtained, in the correct face amount, has a $1.25 million deductible. Thus, defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify for any covered liability within the deductible, i.e., up to $1.25 million (see Hoverson v Herbert Constr. Co., 283 AD2d 237, 238 [2001]).

Nor does plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice provisions of the insurance policy provide a defense. Defendant’s contractual obligation is separate and distinct from the insurer’s obligations under the policy (Singh v New York City Tr. Auth., 17 AD3d 262, 263-264 [2005]). In any event, the amount of the claim is within the deductible. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Thyssenkrupp has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action and in addition declared that said defendant is obligated to indemnify plaintiff for up to $1.25 million, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As defendant Thyssenkrupp is not an insurer, its duty to defend its contractual indemnitee is no broader than its duty to indemnify (Bellefleur v Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 AD3d 807, 809 [2009]). The contract limits the indemnity to losses caused in whole or in part by defendant’s negligence. Because there has been no showing that defendant was negligent, any order requiring defendant to defend or indemnify is premature (see Francescon v Gucci Am., Inc., 71 AD3d 528 [2010]).

However, the contract contains a promise by defendant not only to indemnify, but also to procure insurance that fully covers the scope of the indemnity. The policy that defendant obtained, in the correct face amount, has a $1.25 million deductible. Thus, defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify for any covered liability within the deductible, i.e., up to $1.25 million (see Hoverson v Herbert Constr. Co., 283 AD2d 237, 238 [2001]).

Nor does plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice provisions of the insurance policy provide a defense. Defendant’s contractual obligation is separate and distinct from the insurer’s obligations under the policy (Singh v New York City Tr. Auth., 17 AD3d 262, 263-264 [2005]). In any event, the amount of the claim is within the deductible. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 613, 913 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2010 NY Slip Op 8798, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inner-city-redevelopment-corp-v-thyssenkrupp-elevator-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack