Kosich v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

214 A.D.2d 992, 626 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 28, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 992 (Kosich v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty 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
Kosich v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance, 214 A.D.2d 992, 626 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiffs’ losses were caused by asbestos contamination, coverage for which is specifically excluded under the insurance policy issued by defendant. To determine causation, one looks to the "efficient or dominant cause of the loss”, not the event that "merely set the stage for that later event” (Home Ins. Co. v American Ins. Co., 147 AD2d 353, 354; see also, Album Realty Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., 80 NY2d 1008, rearg denied 81 NY2d 784). Here, the contractor’s cutting into vinyl flooring with a chain saw set in motion a chain of events that ultimately resulted in plaintiffs’ losses. Plaintiffs’ losses, however, were proximately caused by asbestos contamination and losses caused by "contamination” are specifically excluded from coverage.

The court erred, however, in dismissing the complaint rather than declaring the rights of the parties (see, Shields v City of Buffalo, 206 AD2d 921, 922, lv denied 84 NY2d 813). We modify the judgment on appeal by reinstating the complaint insofar as it seeks a declaratory judgment and by granting judgment in favor of defendant declaring that defendant did not wrongfully disclaim coverage and that the circumstances of the occurrence constitute contamination as defined in the policy. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Gravino v. Allstate Insurance
73 A.D.3d 1447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Insurance
546 F. Supp. 2d 101 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Yale University v. Cigna Insurance
224 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Connecticut, 2002)
Allianz Insurance v. RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.
96 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D. New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.D.2d 992, 626 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosich-v-metropolitan-property-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.