Southwest Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Southwest Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 6884, 143 A.D.3d 577, 39 N.Y.S.3d 441

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2016

Docket153861/14 -1987B 1987A 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6884 (Southwest Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co.) 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

Southwest Marine & General Insurance Co. v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 6884, 143 A.D.3d 577, 39 N.Y.S.3d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered April 14 and May 20, 2015, which denied defendant Preferred Contractors Insurance Company’s (PCIC) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that PCIC is obligated to defend and indemnify them in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 23, 2015, to the extent that, upon reargument, it adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

PCIC, a Montana risk retention group, failed to show that the documentary evidence submitted in support of its motion to dismiss “resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs’] claim” (West 64th St., LLC v Axis U.S. Ins., 63 AD3d 471, 471-472 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). While the additional insured endorsements at issue do not reference plaintiffs, plaintiffs are identified on the certificates of insurance, which is relevant to whether plaintiffs’ exclusion from the endorsements was perhaps an inadvertent error (Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co., 227 AD2d 335, 337 [1st Dept 1996]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention that the policy must be construed against PCIC, as the drafter, because ambiguity is created by the appearance of the phrase “Blanket Accident Insurance” within the same form that requires additional insureds to be scheduled (see Ames Const., Inc. v Intermountain Indus., Inc., 712 F Supp 2d 1160, 1166 [D Mont 2010], affd 445 Fed Appx 971 [9th Cir 2011]; Baker v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 794, 796-797 [3d Dept 1990]), “the parties may submit extrinsic evidence as an aid in construction” (State of *578 New York v Home Indem. Co., 66 NY2d 669, 671 [1985]; see also New York State Ins. Fund v Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 125 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015]; Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 72 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2010]; Corporate Air v Edwards Jet Ctr., 345 Mont 336, 349, 190 P3d 1111, 1121 [2008]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Web-ber, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered April 14 and May 20, 2015, which denied defendant Preferred Contractors Insurance Company’s (PCIC) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that PCIC is obligated to defend and indemnify them in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 23, 2015, to the extent that, upon reargument, it adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

PCIC, a Montana risk retention group, failed to show that the documentary evidence submitted in support of its motion to dismiss “resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs’] claim” (West 64th St., LLC v Axis U.S. Ins., 63 AD3d 471, 471-472 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). While the additional insured endorsements at issue do not reference plaintiffs, plaintiffs are identified on the certificates of insurance, which is relevant to whether plaintiffs’ exclusion from the endorsements was perhaps an inadvertent error (Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co., 227 AD2d 335, 337 [1st Dept 1996]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention that the policy must be construed against PCIC, as the drafter, because ambiguity is created by the appearance of the phrase “Blanket Accident Insurance” within the same form that requires additional insureds to be scheduled (see Ames Const., Inc. v Intermountain Indus., Inc., 712 F Supp 2d 1160, 1166 [D Mont 2010], affd 445 Fed Appx 971 [9th Cir 2011]; Baker v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 794, 796-797 [3d Dept 1990]), “the parties may submit extrinsic evidence as an aid in construction” (State of *578 New York v Home Indem. Co., 66 NY2d 669, 671 [1985]; see also New York State Ins. Fund v Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 125 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015]; Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 72 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2010]; Corporate Air v Edwards Jet Ctr., 345 Mont 336, 349, 190 P3d 1111, 1121 [2008]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Web-ber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6884, 143 A.D.3d 577, 39 N.Y.S.3d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwest-marine-general-insurance-co-v-preferred-contractors-insurance-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack