Insurance Corp. v. U.S. Underwriters Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Insurance Corp. v. U.S. Underwriters Insurance

11 A.D.3d 235, 782 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11679

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 235 (Insurance Corp. v. U.S. Underwriters 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

Insurance Corp. v. U.S. Underwriters Insurance, 11 A.D.3d 235, 782 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered February 20, 2004, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant-respondent U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company is not obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff-appellant Insurance Corporation’s insured, third-party defendant-appellant general contractor Ginsburg, in an underlying action for personal injuries brought by an employee of U.S. Underwriters’ insured, defendant subcontractor Gamma Builders, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Insurance Corporation seeks a declaration that U.S. Underwriters, by reason of the policy it issued to subcontractor Gamma Builders, is obligated to defend and indemnify general contractor Ginsburg in an underlying action for personal [236]*236injuries brought by Gamma’s employee. The motion court declared to the contrary on the ground that Ginsburg was not an additional insured on U.S. Underwriters’ policy. We reject Insurance Corporation’s claim that such finding was made sua sponte, or improperly based on an argument raised by U.S. Underwriters for the first time in reply papers (see Sanford v 27-29 W. 181st St. Assn., 300 AD2d 250, 251 [2002]). On the merits, the certificate of insurance naming Ginsburg as an additional insured is not, by itself, sufficient to raise a factual issue as to the existence of coverage (see Glynn v United House of Prayer For All People, 292 AD2d 319, 322 [2002]). Nor is U.S. Underwriters’ inclusion of the certificate in the certified copies of its policy it produced in disclosure and on these motions (assertedly clerical errors) the type of additional factor favoring coverage contemplated by Horn Maintenance Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (225 AD2d 443, 444 [1996]).

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered February 20, 2004, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant-respondent U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company is not obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff-appellant Insurance Corporation’s insured, third-party defendant-appellant general contractor Ginsburg, in an underlying action for personal injuries brought by an employee of U.S. Underwriters’ insured, defendant subcontractor Gamma Builders, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Insurance Corporation seeks a declaration that U.S. Underwriters, by reason of the policy it issued to subcontractor Gamma Builders, is obligated to defend and indemnify general contractor Ginsburg in an underlying action for personal [236]*236injuries brought by Gamma’s employee. The motion court declared to the contrary on the ground that Ginsburg was not an additional insured on U.S. Underwriters’ policy. We reject Insurance Corporation’s claim that such finding was made sua sponte, or improperly based on an argument raised by U.S. Underwriters for the first time in reply papers (see Sanford v 27-29 W. 181st St. Assn., 300 AD2d 250, 251 [2002]). On the merits, the certificate of insurance naming Ginsburg as an additional insured is not, by itself, sufficient to raise a factual issue as to the existence of coverage (see Glynn v United House of Prayer For All People, 292 AD2d 319, 322 [2002]). Nor is U.S. Underwriters’ inclusion of the certificate in the certified copies of its policy it produced in disclosure and on these motions (assertedly clerical errors) the type of additional factor favoring coverage contemplated by Horn Maintenance Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (225 AD2d 443, 444 [1996]).

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 235, 782 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insurance-corp-v-us-underwriters-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack