B.T.R. East Greenbush Inc. v. General Acc. Co.

Decision Date28 July 1994
Citation615 N.Y.S.2d 120,206 A.D.2d 791
PartiesB.T.R. EAST GREENBUSH INC. et al., Respondents, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT COMPANY et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Pemberton & Briggs (James L. Pemberton, of counsel), Schenectady, for appellants.

Moran & Pronti (Jay A. Smith, of counsel), Clifton Park, for respondents.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and CREW, CASEY, WEISS and PETERS, JJ.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered August 30, 1993 in Albany County, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs were the owner and general contractor on a shopping center construction project in the Town of East Greenbush, Rensselaer County. Defendant D.L. Meacham Company Inc. (hereinafter Meacham) was a steel fabricator on the project. Meacham procured a general comprehensive liability insurance policy from defendant General Accident Company which named Meacham and Donald L. Meacham as insureds. The stated period of that policy was December 23, 1987 to December 23, 1988. A certificate of insurance naming plaintiffs as additional insureds and reciting the identical policy period was issued by General Accident on June 17, 1988.

On June 16, 1988, defendant Theodore Sulem II, an employee of Meacham, was injured while working on the project site. Sulem commenced a personal injury action against plaintiffs in which Meacham was joined as a third party. Plaintiffs commenced the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they are insured under the General Accident policy and that General Accident is obligated to defend and indemnify them on the Sulem claim.

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. General Accident and Meacham (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) opposed the motion and requested summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs were not insureds under the General Accident policy. Supreme Court found that the Sulem claim fell within the stated policy period which was unambiguously set forth in both the policy and the certificate. The court determined that the policy period rather than the certificate date controlled and granted plaintiffs' motion. Defendants appeal.

Defendants argue that the form language in the certificate does not confer rights upon the certificate holder nor "amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies". Defendants also contend that the certificate's issuance date supports their claim that plaintiffs were not insureds under the General Accident policy on the date Sulem was injured. However, they offer no extrinsic evidence of General Accident's intent that the issuance date was controlling or that the general language superseded the designation of plaintiffs as additional insureds.

"Summary judgment is not limited to those cases where the contract is free from ambiguity and not subject to differing interpretations (see, Sutton v. East Riv. Sav Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 450 N.Y.S.2d 460, 435 N.E.2d 1075; Bensons Plaza v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 44 N.Y.2d 791, 406...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Lopez v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 16–CV–1845(SJF)(ARL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 18 Enero 2018
    ...named as an additional insured in that case. Id. at 209, 210, 547 N.Y.S.2d 925 ; see also B.T.R. E. Greenbush v. General Accident Co. , 206 A.D.2d 791, 615 N.Y.S.2d 120 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (similarly involving an insurer-issued certificate of insurance).In Horn Maintenance Corp. v. Aetna ......
  • Catlyn & Derzee, Inc. v. Amedore Land Developers, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 29 Octubre 2015
    ...is that the parties abandoned a per unit purchase price (id.at 892, 906 N.Y.S.2d 129, quoting B.T.R. E. Greenbush v. General Acc. Co.,206 A.D.2d 791, 792, 615 N.Y.S.2d 120 [1994], lv. 132 A.D.3d 1206denied84 N.Y.2d 808, 621 N.Y.S.2d 517, 645 N.E.2d 1217 [1994]), Supreme Court properly dismi......
  • Currier, McCabe & Associates, Inc. v. Maher
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Julio 2010
    ...see Sutton v. East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 554, 450 N.Y.S.2d 460, 435 N.E.2d 1075 [1982]; B.T.R. E. Greenbush v. General Acc. Co. 206 A.D.2d 791, 792, 615 N.Y.S.2d 120 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 808, 621 N.Y.S.2d 517, 645 N.E.2d 1217 [1994] ). In interpreting such an agreement, as ......
  • U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Shorenstein Realty, 07 C 3179.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 8 Diciembre 2008
    ...... REALTY SERVICES, LP; Shorenstein Management, Inc.; Shorenstein Company, LLC; SRI Michigan Avenue ...; SRI Michigan Avenue Management, Inc.; 175 East Delaware Place Homeowners Association, ... indemnify defendants, under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a non-party, ...E. Greenbush v. Gen. Accident Co., 206 A.D.2d 791, 792-93, 615 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT