Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

268 A.D.2d 388, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 388 (Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual 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
Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance, 268 A.D.2d 388, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 7, 1999, which, inter alla, granted the cross motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., and AIU Insurance Company, declaring that Lehrer McGovern is entitled to have defendant Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (PSM) defend and indemnify it in the underlying action and that AIU is entitled to reimbursement from PSM for costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees expended in its defense and indemnification of Lehrer McGovern in connection with the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant may not invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to defeat the claims of plaintiffs Lehrer and AIU because there is no identity between the issues in this action and those previously determined in Lehrer McGovern’s prior action against defendant’s insured (see, Read v Sacco, 49 AD2d 471, 473).

The burden of proving valid cancellation of an insurance policy is upon the insurance company disclaiming coverage based on cancellation (see, Holmes v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 1045) and the court, in granting summary judgment to Lehrer and AIU, properly found that defendant failed to [389]*389sustain that burden or to present evidence in admissible form sufficient to create an issue of fact as to the validity of its timely cancellation prior to the workplace accident that gave rise to this lawsuit (see, Colon v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 211 AD2d 579, 580).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Bradley v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
2019 NY Slip Op 2054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v. Tri-State Consumer Insurance
31 Misc. 3d 13 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Badio v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
12 A.D.3d 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 388, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehrer-mcgovern-bovis-inc-v-public-service-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.