Turner Construction Co. v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance

126 A.D.3d 524, 5 N.Y.S.3d 422
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2015
Docket14241 106513/09
StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 524 (Turner Construction Co. v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance) 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
Turner Construction Co. v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance, 126 A.D.3d 524, 5 N.Y.S.3d 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered October 3, 2013, declaring that defendant Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company is not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury action, and dismissing the complaint as against it, deemed appeal from judgment, entered November 26, 2013 (CPLR 5501 [c]), dismissing the complaint *525 as against Harleysville, and, so considered, said judgment unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that Harleysville is not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Even if all the plaintiffs in this action had additional insured status under the insurance policy issued by defendant Harleysville, they would not be entitled to coverage because they failed to give Harleysville notice of the occurrence as soon as practicable, as required by the policy (see Tower Ins. of N.Y. v Amsterdam Apts., LLC, 82 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiffs did not notify Harleysville of the injured worker’s accident until June 25, 2008, nine months after the accident occurred and more than two months after the personal injury action was commenced, on April 15, 2008.

Plaintiffs’ belief that no claim would be asserted against them was not reasonable (see e.g. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Classon Hgts., LLC, 82 AD3d 632, 635 [1st Dept 2011]). They were aware that the injured claimant was on a gurney and removed from the construction site by boat and transported to the hospital by ambulance on the day of the accident. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Tower Insurance v. Amsterdam Apartments, LLC
82 A.D.3d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Tower Insurance v. Classon Heights, LLC
82 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.3d 524, 5 N.Y.S.3d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-construction-co-v-harleysville-worcester-insurance-nyappdiv-2015.