National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh v. Hartford Insurance
This text of 717 N.E.2d 1077 (National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh v. Hartford Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*986 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary, since the Appellate Division order reversing the judgment of the trial court was final.
The dispositive issue in Chaos Construction Corporation’s prior lawsuit against only National Union Fire Insurance Company was whether National was obligated to defend and indemnify Chaos in the underlying wrongful death action. That is not the same issue as here, where National seeks a declaration that Hartford Insurance Company owes it a duty of contribution as a coinsurer of Chaos. Because “identicality of an issue” is lacking here (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261, 266), Hartford has failed to establish its entitlement to collateral estoppel against National. Under the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court’s resolution of the earlier action does not preclude National from now seeking resolution of its contribution claim.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
717 N.E.2d 1077, 93 N.Y.2d 983, 695 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-fire-insurance-of-pittsburgh-v-hartford-insurance-ny-1999.