National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.

120 A.D.3d 1140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 432

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2014

Docket13039 301659/11

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1140 (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.) 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

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff National Union’s motion for summary judgment against defendant JRP Contracting, Inc., with leave to renew, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that National Union has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant JRP Contracting, Inc. in the underlying personal injury action.

National Union was entitled to rely on the underlying plaintiffs bill of particulars to make a prima facie showing that the ligament and meniscal tears he allegedly sustained do not qualify as “grave injuries] ” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Marshall v Arias, 12 AD3d 423, 424 [2d Dept 2004]). Indeed, the underlying plaintiff failed to allege that he had lost the use of his knee, let alone the use of his leg (see Fleischman v Peacock Water Co., Inc., 51 AD3d 1203, 1205 [3d Dept 2008]). JRP produced no evidence indicating that *1141 further discovery will yield material and relevant evidence (see id.). Accordingly, National Union has no obligation to defend or indemnify JRP for the underlying common-law indemnification and contribution claims (cf. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 43 AD3d 666, 667-668 [1st Dept 2007]). Further, National Union is not obligated to defend or indemnify JRP for the underlying contractual indemnification claim, since its policy clearly excludes coverage for “liability assumed under a contract.”

JRP’s argument that it will be prejudiced if National Union withdraws from its defense is unavailing, as National Union expressly reserved its rights to disclaim coverage, and JRP failed to demonstrate prejudice (see General Acc. Ins. Co. v 35 Jackson Ave. Corp., 258 AD2d 616, 618 [2d Dept 1999]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff National Union’s motion for summary judgment against defendant JRP Contracting, Inc., with leave to renew, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that National Union has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant JRP Contracting, Inc. in the underlying personal injury action.

National Union was entitled to rely on the underlying plaintiffs bill of particulars to make a prima facie showing that the ligament and meniscal tears he allegedly sustained do not qualify as “grave injuries] ” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Marshall v Arias, 12 AD3d 423, 424 [2d Dept 2004]). Indeed, the underlying plaintiff failed to allege that he had lost the use of his knee, let alone the use of his leg (see Fleischman v Peacock Water Co., Inc., 51 AD3d 1203, 1205 [3d Dept 2008]). JRP produced no evidence indicating that *1141 further discovery will yield material and relevant evidence (see id.). Accordingly, National Union has no obligation to defend or indemnify JRP for the underlying common-law indemnification and contribution claims (cf. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 43 AD3d 666, 667-668 [1st Dept 2007]). Further, National Union is not obligated to defend or indemnify JRP for the underlying contractual indemnification claim, since its policy clearly excludes coverage for “liability assumed under a contract.”

JRP’s argument that it will be prejudiced if National Union withdraws from its defense is unavailing, as National Union expressly reserved its rights to disclaim coverage, and JRP failed to demonstrate prejudice (see General Acc. Ins. Co. v 35 Jackson Ave. Corp., 258 AD2d 616, 618 [2d Dept 1999]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1140, 992 N.Y.S.2d 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-fire-ins-co-of-pittsburgh-pa-v-221-223-w-82-owners-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack