State v. Thalle Construction Co.

248 A.D.2d 257, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme [258] Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland), which defended plaintiff State of New York in the underlying action against it by defendant Thalle Construction Co.’s (Thalle) employee, is the real party in interest in this action by the State against Thalle and its workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurer, The State Insurance Fund (The Fund), for common-law indemnification. Since Northern Insurance Co. (Northern) covered Thalle’s common-law indemnification obligation under an “insured contract” exception to the exclusion for employment-related injuries, and it is not disputed that Maryland and Northern are both wholly owned subsidiaries of The Maryland Commercial Insurance Group, the action against Thalle is barred by the antisubrogation rule (see, Maksymowicz v New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 AD2d 223; Washington v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 215 AD2d 297). As against The Fund, the action was properly dismissed absent a contract between it and the State.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli, and Andrias, JJ.

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

State v. Thalle Construction Co., 248 A.D.2d 257, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

248 A.D.2d 257 (State v. Thalle Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Travelers Insurance v. Nory Construction Co.
184 Misc. 2d 366 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)