Martin v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

19 A.D.3d 221, 797 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 221 (Martin v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America) 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

Martin v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 19 A.D.3d 221, 797 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 24, 2004, awarding plaintiff assignee damages against defendant insurer, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant is obligated to satisfy the judgment entered against its insured (Schneider) and in favor of plaintiff in an underlying action for personal injuries, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Schneider’s written notice of claim advised defendant, inter alia, that he had been involved in an “altercation” with plaintiff and arrested; plaintiffs complaint against Schneider alleged, inter alia, that he sustained personal injury as a result of Schneider’s negligence; defendant disclaimed coverage; and the jury in plaintiffs action against Schneider found that plaintiffs injuries were caused by Schneider’s negligence. The motion court correctly held, inter alia, that the jury’s finding of negligence collaterally estops defendant from presently arguing that Schneider’s acts either were not a covered “occurrence” within the policy or fell entirely within policy exclusions for intentional torts and criminal acts. At least one possibility of coverage was reasonably suggested in the underlying action (see Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 648 [1993]), namely, that Schneider acted in self-defense. Given such a possibility, and absent a court order otherwise, defendant was under a duty to defend Schneider, and its refusal to do so collaterally estops it from attacking the judgment in plaintiffs favor or raising defenses with respect to its merits (see Ramos v National Cas. Co., 227 AD2d 250 [1996]). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ. [See 1 Mise 3d 912(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50039(U) (2004).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 24, 2004, awarding plaintiff assignee damages against defendant insurer, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant is obligated to satisfy the judgment entered against its insured (Schneider) and in favor of plaintiff in an underlying action for personal injuries, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Schneider’s written notice of claim advised defendant, inter alia, that he had been involved in an “altercation” with plaintiff and arrested; plaintiffs complaint against Schneider alleged, inter alia, that he sustained personal injury as a result of Schneider’s negligence; defendant disclaimed coverage; and the jury in plaintiffs action against Schneider found that plaintiffs injuries were caused by Schneider’s negligence. The motion court correctly held, inter alia, that the jury’s finding of negligence collaterally estops defendant from presently arguing that Schneider’s acts either were not a covered “occurrence” within the policy or fell entirely within policy exclusions for intentional torts and criminal acts. At least one possibility of coverage was reasonably suggested in the underlying action (see Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 648 [1993]), namely, that Schneider acted in self-defense. Given such a possibility, and absent a court order otherwise, defendant was under a duty to defend Schneider, and its refusal to do so collaterally estops it from attacking the judgment in plaintiffs favor or raising defenses with respect to its merits (see Ramos v National Cas. Co., 227 AD2d 250 [1996]). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ. [See 1 Mise 3d 912(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50039(U) (2004).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 221, 797 N.Y.S.2d 451, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-safeco-insurance-co-of-america-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack