D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
| Parties | Robert D'ARATA and Susan D'Arata, Respondents, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cohen & Lombardo, P.C. by Anthony Nosek, Buffalo, for appellant.
Hall, Ricketts, Marky & Gurbacki by Robert Gurbacki, East Aurora, for respondents.
Before DENMAN, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.
Special Term erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in this action to compel the defendant insurer to pay an unsatisfied default judgment. The subject homeowner's insurance policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injuries "expected or intended by the insured." Here, the insured's conviction for first degree assault conclusively established that the injuries plaintiffs received were intentionally caused by the insured and, therefore, plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of intent in this action (see, S.T. Grand, Inc. v. City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 300, 305, 344 N.Y.S.2d 938, 298 N.E.2d 105; Bergen v. Shapiro, 129 A.D.2d 669, 514 N.Y.S.2d 429; Hooks v. Middlebrook, 99 A.D.2d 663, 472 N.Y.S.2d 54). We reject Special Term's conclusion that plaintiffs did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of intent in the criminal action. Plaintiffs, as judgment creditors seeking to enforce the policy, have no greater rights than the insured under the policy (see, Spadaro v. Newark Ins. Co., 21 A.D.2d 226, 249 N.Y.S.2d 753, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 1000, 260 N.Y.S.2d 16, 207 N.E.2d 611). Here, unlike Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49, 423 N.E.2d 807 where defendant was charged with the petty offense of harassment, the insured was charged with several felonies including attempted murder, robbery and first degree assault. Thus, there can be no doubt that the insured had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of intent (see, Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Arzillo, 98 A.D.2d 495, 472 N.Y.S.2d 97). Plaintiffs' reliance upon Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 38 N.Y.2d 735, 381 N.Y.S.2d 40, 343 N.E.2d 758) is misplaced because there the insurer's duty to defend was at issue, whereas here, only the duty to pay is in question. There can be no duty to indemnify where the loss is not covered under the policy (see, Servidone Constr. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co., 64 N.Y.2d 419, 488 N.Y.S.2d 139, 477 N.E.2d 441; New York Casualty Ins. Co. v. Ward,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Jones
...supra; New Jersey Manufacturer's Ins. Co. v. Brower, supra, 161 N.J.Super. at 299, 391 A.2d 923; D'Arata v. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 152 App.Div.2d 1004, 543 N.Y.S.2d 810 (1989), aff'd, 76 N.Y.2d 659, 564 N.E.2d 634, 563 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1990); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Re......
-
D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...on this collateral estoppel defense. The Appellate Division reversed, granted defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint. 152 A.D.2d 1004, 543 N.Y.S.2d 810. We granted leave and now II Collateral estoppel, an equitable doctrine, is based upon the general notion that a party, or one in ......
-
Sun Ins. Co. of New York v. Hercules Securities Unlimited, Inc.
...directly against the defendant insurer (see, Insurance Law § 3420[b][1], the Appellate Division, reversing the Supreme Court (152 A.D.2d 1004, 543 N.Y.S.2d 810), granted summary judgment to the defendant insurer on the basis of proof that, in a prior criminal prosecution, the insured wrongd......
-
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
... ... not exist; it is not implied as a matter of law (New York State Thruway Auth. v. Hurd, 25 N.Y.2d 150, 158, 303 ... New Jersey F & P.G. Ins. Co., 245 N.Y. 1, 5-6, 156 N.E. 76; 5 ... ...