Soho Plaza Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soho Plaza Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

309 A.D.2d 504, 764 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which, upon the prior grant of plaintiff Soho Plaza Corp., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant insurer is required to indemnify Soho Plaza for amounts paid by it in settlement of the underlying action, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $3,429,431, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s finding of insurance coverage does not violate public policy as embodied in statute and case law prohibiting indemnification under directors and officers liability insurance policies where directors and officers have been cast in liability by reason of their deliberate dishonesty or bad faith. Defendant’s claim that the judgment in the underlying action [505]*505“necessarily” includes a finding that Soho Plaza’s directors and officers acted with deliberate dishonesty and bad faith is conclusively refuted by the record of the proceedings in that action.

Defendant’s remaining arguments, including that the finding of coverage results in unjust enrichment to the insured; that the alleged culpable acts do not fall within the effective dates of the subject policies; and that breach of contract claims are excluded from coverage, are not properly raised for the first time on appeal (see Martin v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 198 AD2d 160 [1993]). Moreover, were we to reach these claims, we would find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which, upon the prior grant of plaintiff Soho Plaza Corp., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant insurer is required to indemnify Soho Plaza for amounts paid by it in settlement of the underlying action, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $3,429,431, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s finding of insurance coverage does not violate public policy as embodied in statute and case law prohibiting indemnification under directors and officers liability insurance policies where directors and officers have been cast in liability by reason of their deliberate dishonesty or bad faith. Defendant’s claim that the judgment in the underlying action [505]*505“necessarily” includes a finding that Soho Plaza’s directors and officers acted with deliberate dishonesty and bad faith is conclusively refuted by the record of the proceedings in that action.

Defendant’s remaining arguments, including that the finding of coverage results in unjust enrichment to the insured; that the alleged culpable acts do not fall within the effective dates of the subject policies; and that breach of contract claims are excluded from coverage, are not properly raised for the first time on appeal (see Martin v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 198 AD2d 160 [1993]). Moreover, were we to reach these claims, we would find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Soho Plaza Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 309 A.D.2d 504, 764 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

309 A.D.2d 504 (Soho Plaza Corp. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related