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.

128 A.D.3d 425, 8 N.Y.S.3d 314

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

DecidedMay 5, 2015

Docket15013 103830/07

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 425 (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., 128 A.D.3d 425, 8 N.Y.S.3d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*426 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 14, 2014, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation seeking indemnification in the amount of $275,000 and setting the matter down for an assessment of damages with respect to its claims for defense costs on the grounds that there was no duty to defend or indemnify unless there was a finding of negligence, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that Thyssenkrupp has a broad duty to defend, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The indemnification provision in the elevator installation agreement required Thyssenkrupp, as subcontractor, to defend and indemnify the owner and contractor for bodily injury and damage resulting from Thyssenkrupp’s own negligent actions. No finding has yet been made as to Thyssenkrupp’s negligence, and thus no determination can yet be made as to its obligation to indemnify. As an indemnitor, Thyssenkrupp is not an insurer, and in that context its duty to defend is no broader than its duty to indemnify (see Bellefleur v Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 AD3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2009]).

Nevertheless, where, as here, a party gives a promise to procure insurance to protect from a certain amount of liability, it may obtain insurance with a self-insured retention or deductible, but the promising party must pay any costs, including defense costs. This proposition is not based on Thyssenkrupp’s status as a “self-insurer,” but on its promise to procure insurance (see Hoverson v Herbert Constr. Co., 283 AD2d 237, 238 [1st Dept 2001]; Structure Tone v Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 AD2d 144 [1st Dept 1998]). In that context, Thyssenkrupp is acting like an insurer, and has a broad duty to defend, as an insurer would. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*426 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 14, 2014, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation seeking indemnification in the amount of $275,000 and setting the matter down for an assessment of damages with respect to its claims for defense costs on the grounds that there was no duty to defend or indemnify unless there was a finding of negligence, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that Thyssenkrupp has a broad duty to defend, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The indemnification provision in the elevator installation agreement required Thyssenkrupp, as subcontractor, to defend and indemnify the owner and contractor for bodily injury and damage resulting from Thyssenkrupp’s own negligent actions. No finding has yet been made as to Thyssenkrupp’s negligence, and thus no determination can yet be made as to its obligation to indemnify. As an indemnitor, Thyssenkrupp is not an insurer, and in that context its duty to defend is no broader than its duty to indemnify (see Bellefleur v Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 AD3d 807, 809 [2d Dept 2009]).

Nevertheless, where, as here, a party gives a promise to procure insurance to protect from a certain amount of liability, it may obtain insurance with a self-insured retention or deductible, but the promising party must pay any costs, including defense costs. This proposition is not based on Thyssenkrupp’s status as a “self-insurer,” but on its promise to procure insurance (see Hoverson v Herbert Constr. Co., 283 AD2d 237, 238 [1st Dept 2001]; Structure Tone v Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 AD2d 144 [1st Dept 1998]). In that context, Thyssenkrupp is acting like an insurer, and has a broad duty to defend, as an insurer would. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 425, 8 N.Y.S.3d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inner-city-redevelopment-corp-v-thyssenkrupp-elevator-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack