Corbetta Const. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1965 |
| Citation | 206 N.E.2d 357,15 N.Y.2d 888,258 N.Y.S.2d 423 |
| Parties | , 206 N.E.2d 357 CORBETTA CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., Respondent, v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 20 A.D.2d 375, 247 N.Y.S.2d 288.
Insured brought action against insurer on a general liability policy covering a contract between the insured and the United States government for reconstruction of a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Recovery was sought of the amount which the insured was obliged to spend in repair of two structures which were seriously damaged in the course of construction of the dry dock. The Navy construction officer in charge of the work ruled that the cause of the damage was the insured's negligent failure to build a proper cofferdam. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the damage was caused by the insured's negligence and that the insured must make good for the damage. The policy obligated the insurer to defend the insured in an arbitration proceeding arising under the construction contract and to be bound by the result thereof.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Peter A. Quinn, J., entered an order denying the insured's motion for summary judgment and to strike three affirmative defenses contained in the answer and a cross-motion by the insurer for summary judgment, and both the insured and the insurer appealed.
The Appellate Division, Witmer, J., modified the order of the Special Term, struck the affirmative defenses, granted summary judgment to the insured to the extent of full policy coverage plus counsel fees, remanded the case for trial of the issue of damage and counsel fees, and held that the damage was the result of an accident within the terms of the policy.
The question was certified by the Appellate Division: 'Was the order of this Court dated February 27, 1964 which modified the order of the Special Term dated August 13, 1962 correctly made?'
The insurer appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that damage was not caused by an accident as required by the policy, and that the insurer was in no way bound by the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals under the disputes clause of the government contract because the Board did not determine whether the damage was caused by accident.
Hanlon & Dawe, New York City (Edward Ash and Sidney A. Schwartz, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Smith
...F.Supp. 300, 302(1); Corbetta Const. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liab. Co., 20 A.D.2d 375, 247 N.Y.S.2d 288, 292(4), affirmed 15 N.Y.2d 888, 258 N.Y.S.2d 423, 206 N.E.2d 357.19 Taylor v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., S.D., 144 N.W.2d 856 (1966); Palace Laundry Co. v. Hartford Accident & Ind......
-
Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of New York
...N.Y.S.2d 560.) In fact, in Corbetta Constr. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 20 A.D.2d 375, 379, 247 N.Y.S.2d 288, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 888, 258 N.Y.S.2d 423, 206 N.E.2d 357, this court ruled that it is "perfectly legal and proper" for a governmental agency of one of the contracting parties to ac......
-
Chemtec Midwest Serv., Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. America
... ... , with respect to the coverage of a certain liability insurance policy issued to Chemtec Midwest by INA. This ... v. Triplett, 243 Miss. 815, 139 So.2d 357 (1962); Corbetta Construction Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 20 A ... ...
-
Taylor v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co.
...5 Cir., 322 F.2d 37; Corbetta Constr. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 20 A.D.2d 375, 247 N.Y.S.2d 288, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 888, 258 N.Y.S.2d 423, 206 N.E.2d 357. We conclude that the claims for damages in the original action were covered by the insurance policies issued by appellants and ......