Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance

139 A.D.3d 497, 33 N.Y.S.3d 162

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

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket1145N 156663/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 497 (Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States 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

Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance, 139 A.D.3d 497, 33 N.Y.S.3d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*498 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendant J&R Glassworks, Inc.’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Chatsworth Builders, LLC (Chatsworth) was the general contractor for a construction project and subcontracted with J&R Glassworks, Inc. (J&R) to perform certain glasswork. A construction worker, Raphael Mejia, was subsequently injured while performing glasswork. Mejia commenced an action against plaintiff 537 West 27th Street Owners, LLC (537) and Chatsworth, among others (the Mejia action). Chatsworth and 537 commenced a third-party action against J&R and Walsh Glass & Metal, Inc. (Walsh), another glass-work subcontractor on the project, asserting causes of action for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. While the Mejia action was pending, plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that J&R breached its obligation to purchase insurance. J&R failed to respond to plaintiffs’ summons and complaint in this action, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment, which was granted.

The court properly denied J&R’s motion to vacate the default judgment. J&R argues that the court, in addition to denying J&R’s motion to vacate the default, improperly granted plaintiff damages related to contractual indemnification, which J&R asserts plaintiff did not seek in its amended complaint. Contrary to J&R’s argument, the court’s decision denying the motion to vacate states that the default was limited to “the claims alleged against movant in the amended summons and complaint,” which did not include a claim that J&R was in breach of its contractual obligations to indemnify and defend Chatsworth and 537 in the Mejia action.

An agreement to indemnify is separate and distinct from an agreement to procure insurance (Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 218 [1990]). As plaintiffs’ complaint only sought a declaratory judgment that J&R had breached its obligation to procure insurance, its default judgment may not exceed the relief sought and must be limited to that cause of action (CPLR 3215 [b]; Gluck v Allen Mfg. Co., 53 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 1976]). We have examined appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

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

*498 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendant J&R Glassworks, Inc.’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Chatsworth Builders, LLC (Chatsworth) was the general contractor for a construction project and subcontracted with J&R Glassworks, Inc. (J&R) to perform certain glasswork. A construction worker, Raphael Mejia, was subsequently injured while performing glasswork. Mejia commenced an action against plaintiff 537 West 27th Street Owners, LLC (537) and Chatsworth, among others (the Mejia action). Chatsworth and 537 commenced a third-party action against J&R and Walsh Glass & Metal, Inc. (Walsh), another glass-work subcontractor on the project, asserting causes of action for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. While the Mejia action was pending, plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that J&R breached its obligation to purchase insurance. J&R failed to respond to plaintiffs’ summons and complaint in this action, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment, which was granted.

The court properly denied J&R’s motion to vacate the default judgment. J&R argues that the court, in addition to denying J&R’s motion to vacate the default, improperly granted plaintiff damages related to contractual indemnification, which J&R asserts plaintiff did not seek in its amended complaint. Contrary to J&R’s argument, the court’s decision denying the motion to vacate states that the default was limited to “the claims alleged against movant in the amended summons and complaint,” which did not include a claim that J&R was in breach of its contractual obligations to indemnify and defend Chatsworth and 537 in the Mejia action.

An agreement to indemnify is separate and distinct from an agreement to procure insurance (Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 218 [1990]). As plaintiffs’ complaint only sought a declaratory judgment that J&R had breached its obligation to procure insurance, its default judgment may not exceed the relief sought and must be limited to that cause of action (CPLR 3215 [b]; Gluck v Allen Mfg. Co., 53 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 1976]). We have examined appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 497, 33 N.Y.S.3d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mt-hawley-insurance-v-american-states-insurance-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack