Transportation Insurance v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc.
This text of 233 A.D.2d 234 (Transportation Insurance v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about February 2, 1996, which, on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared that plaintiff insurer did not breach a duty to defend or indemnify defendants insureds in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Even if the complaint in the underlying action can be reasonably interpreted as alleging a claim for defamation, such a claim falls solely and entirely within the policy exclusion of knowingly false statements, the underlying complaint being restricted to charges of malicious and purposeful intent on defendants’ part in a conspiratorial effort to drive the injured party out of the family business (see, International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325). A duty to defend cannot be triggered by defendants’ mere speculation that additional facts showing reckless or negligent defamation may be developed at a later time (see, Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero, 79 NY2d 153, 162-163; Warrensburg Bd. & Paper Corp. v Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 143 AD2d 602, 603). We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
233 A.D.2d 234, 650 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/transportation-insurance-v-hugo-neu-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1996.