Preferred Mutual Insurance v. Zani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Preferred Mutual Insurance v. Zani

137 A.D.3d 456, 25 N.Y.S.3d 879

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket398 652598/13

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 456 (Preferred Mutual Insurance v. Zani) 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

Preferred Mutual Insurance v. Zani, 137 A.D.3d 456, 25 N.Y.S.3d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, *457 J.), entered June 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant John C. Zani doing business as Classic Home Improvement in the subrogation action brought by defendant Aspen American Insurance Company with respect to certain property damage, and so declared, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Aspen’s allegations in its subrogation action that as a result of Zani’s negligent work on Aspen’s insured’s building, the building was “severe [ly] damage [d]” by “a partial collapse” of a wall “on or about November 22, 2012” do not give rise to a duty on plaintiff’s part to defend Zani in that action. First, the policy excludes from coverage damage attributable to Zani’s own defective work product (see generally George A. Fuller Co. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 200 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 806 [1994]; Erie Ins. Co. v Nick Radtke, Inc., 126 AD3d 757 [2d Dept 2015]). Second, the partial collapse of the wall constitutes an occurrence under the occurrence-based policy, and the occurrence took place outside the policy coverage period; the policy had been cancelled in October 2010. Aspen and Zani’s contention that the occurrence was not the collapse of the wall but the continuous movement of the outer layer of brick for several years, which had impaired the structural integrity of the wall, is belied by the policy definition of occurrence as an “accident.”

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, *457 J.), entered June 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant John C. Zani doing business as Classic Home Improvement in the subrogation action brought by defendant Aspen American Insurance Company with respect to certain property damage, and so declared, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Aspen’s allegations in its subrogation action that as a result of Zani’s negligent work on Aspen’s insured’s building, the building was “severe [ly] damage [d]” by “a partial collapse” of a wall “on or about November 22, 2012” do not give rise to a duty on plaintiff’s part to defend Zani in that action. First, the policy excludes from coverage damage attributable to Zani’s own defective work product (see generally George A. Fuller Co. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 200 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 806 [1994]; Erie Ins. Co. v Nick Radtke, Inc., 126 AD3d 757 [2d Dept 2015]). Second, the partial collapse of the wall constitutes an occurrence under the occurrence-based policy, and the occurrence took place outside the policy coverage period; the policy had been cancelled in October 2010. Aspen and Zani’s contention that the occurrence was not the collapse of the wall but the continuous movement of the outer layer of brick for several years, which had impaired the structural integrity of the wall, is belied by the policy definition of occurrence as an “accident.”

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 456, 25 N.Y.S.3d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preferred-mutual-insurance-v-zani-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack