Westchester Fire Insurance v. MCI Communications Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westchester Fire Insurance v. MCI Communications Corp.

74 A.D.3d 551, 902 N.Y.S.2d 350

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 2010·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 22, 2009, which, inter alia, granted CNA Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it does not have a duty to pay MCI’s “first dollar” defense costs and denied as moot MCI’s motion for summary judgment declaring that CNA has a duty to defend it in numerous landowner actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court, in a well-reasoned decision, properly found endorsement 30 in the 1992-1995 policies at issue unambiguous in providing that MCI is liable for its own defense costs. Contrary to MCI’s contention, the provision is not an exclusion (see Pav-Lak Indus., Inc. v Arch Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 287, 288 [2008]). Absent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. Nor is there a need to resort to contra proferentem, which, in any event, would be inapplicable to this sophisticated policyholder (see Cummins, Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 288, 290 [2008]).

We have considered MCI’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32438(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 22, 2009, which, inter alia, granted CNA Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it does not have a duty to pay MCI’s “first dollar” defense costs and denied as moot MCI’s motion for summary judgment declaring that CNA has a duty to defend it in numerous landowner actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court, in a well-reasoned decision, properly found endorsement 30 in the 1992-1995 policies at issue unambiguous in providing that MCI is liable for its own defense costs. Contrary to MCI’s contention, the provision is not an exclusion (see Pav-Lak Indus., Inc. v Arch Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 287, 288 [2008]). Absent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. Nor is there a need to resort to contra proferentem, which, in any event, would be inapplicable to this sophisticated policyholder (see Cummins, Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 288, 290 [2008]).

We have considered MCI’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32438(U).]

Westchester Fire Insurance v. MCI Communications Corp., 74 A.D.3d 551, 902 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

74 A.D.3d 551 (Westchester Fire Insurance v. MCI Communications Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related