National Union Fire Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Union Fire Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

261 A.D.2d 259, 690 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487

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

DecidedMay 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 259 (National Union Fire Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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 Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 261 A.D.2d 259, 690 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 10, 1998, which, in this declaratory judgment action, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiffs and defendants on the counterclaims for summary judgment, declaring in their favor that they are not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant Port Authority for any claims arising out of the World Trade Center bombing, and dismissing defendant Port Authority’s counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the aftermath of the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, some 28 personal injury claims were filed against defendant Port Authority by persons who, at the time of the bombing, happened to be upon World Trade Center premises leased and/or managed by respondents Inhilco and Hilton pursuant to agreements with Port Authority. Port Authority has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification from Inhilco and Hilton for liability arising from these claims by reason of indemnification provisions contained in the aforesaid management and lease agreements providing that Inhilco [260]*260and Hilton would indemnify Port Authority and hold it harmless, “from all claims and demands of third persons including but not limited to those for death, personal injuries, or for property damages arising out of the use or occupancy” of the subject restaurant and hotel premises. We agree with the motion court that the claims for which indemnification is sought did not arise out of use or occupancy of the subject premises. It is plain that the planting of the bomb whose detonation led to the claimants’ injuries, in a portion of the World Trade Center over which respondents indisputably exercised no control (cf., ZKZ Assocs. v CNA Ins. Co., 89 NY2d 990), was not in any way attributable to the use or occupancy of the premises respondents leased and managed. While the claimants’ injuries may, broadly speaking, be said to have been connected to their presence on those premises (see, Amato v Our Lady of Peace R. C. Church, 56 NY2d 999), they cannot fairly be said to have arisen from that circumstance (see, Sea Ins. Co. v Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 849 F Supp 221, 226, affd 51 F3d 22). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 10, 1998, which, in this declaratory judgment action, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiffs and defendants on the counterclaims for summary judgment, declaring in their favor that they are not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant Port Authority for any claims arising out of the World Trade Center bombing, and dismissing defendant Port Authority’s counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the aftermath of the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, some 28 personal injury claims were filed against defendant Port Authority by persons who, at the time of the bombing, happened to be upon World Trade Center premises leased and/or managed by respondents Inhilco and Hilton pursuant to agreements with Port Authority. Port Authority has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification from Inhilco and Hilton for liability arising from these claims by reason of indemnification provisions contained in the aforesaid management and lease agreements providing that Inhilco [260]*260and Hilton would indemnify Port Authority and hold it harmless, “from all claims and demands of third persons including but not limited to those for death, personal injuries, or for property damages arising out of the use or occupancy” of the subject restaurant and hotel premises. We agree with the motion court that the claims for which indemnification is sought did not arise out of use or occupancy of the subject premises. It is plain that the planting of the bomb whose detonation led to the claimants’ injuries, in a portion of the World Trade Center over which respondents indisputably exercised no control (cf., ZKZ Assocs. v CNA Ins. Co., 89 NY2d 990), was not in any way attributable to the use or occupancy of the premises respondents leased and managed. While the claimants’ injuries may, broadly speaking, be said to have been connected to their presence on those premises (see, Amato v Our Lady of Peace R. C. Church, 56 NY2d 999), they cannot fairly be said to have arisen from that circumstance (see, Sea Ins. Co. v Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 849 F Supp 221, 226, affd 51 F3d 22). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 259, 690 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-fire-insurance-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack