Direct Travel, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
| Citation | 625 N.Y.S.2d 221,214 A.D.2d 484 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1995 |
| Parties | DIRECT TRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, and Erich Courant & Co., Inc., Defendant. |
M.J. Hertz, for plaintiff-appellant.
P.J. Meyers, for defendant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and TOM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about May 27, 1994, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, and declared that Aetna had no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiff with respect to claims asserted against it in Stuckey et al. v. Direct Travel, Inc., et al., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that defendant was relieved of its duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action since it demonstrated that the allegations of the complaint fell outside the scope of the coverage provided by the primary and umbrella policies issued to plaintiff. There was no ambiguity in the declarations page of the primary policy with respect to professional liability coverage since such coverage clearly only applied to the businesses enumerated which did not include travel related services such as that engaged in by plaintiff (see, Breed v. Insurance Co. of North America, 46 N.Y.2d 351, 413 N.Y.S.2d 352, 385 N.E.2d 1280; Moshiko, Inc. v. Seiger & Smith, 137 A.D.2d 170, 529 N.Y.S.2d 284, affd. 72 N.Y.2d 945, 533 N.Y.S.2d 52, 529 N.E.2d 420). Moreover, coverage was also properly disclaimed pursuant to exclusion F(3) of the primary policy which explicitly excluded losses such as that claimed herein, which resulted from the issuance, arrangement or amendment of a contract of insurance or the failure to so issue, arrange or amend such contract. Since the claims asserted in the underlying action were for economic loss resulting from the plaintiff's purported breach of contract, coverage was also properly disclaimed under the umbrella policy which covered only "damages because of 'bodily injury' [or] 'property damage' * * * [c]aused by an 'occurrence' " (see, Smith Pontiac-GMC Truck Center v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 194 A.D.2d 906, 599 N.Y.S.2d 308).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Utica, NY v. Genesee Management, Inc.
...Mut. Ins. Co., 251 Pa.Super. 1, 379 A.2d 118, 123 (1977). The last case Travelers cites, Direct Travel, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 214 A.D.2d 484, 625 N.Y.S.2d 221, 222 (1st Dept.1995), is ambiguous in its holding because although it construes the declarations page, it does not ......
-
Thruway Produce, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co.
...for anything other than economic damages. Id. at 194, 741 N.Y.S.2d 692. Similarly, in Direct Travel, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 214 A.D.2d 484, 625 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1st Dep't 1995), there was apparently no dispute that the claims in the underlying action were for "economic loss resul......
-
Hugh Boss Fashions v. Fed'l Insurance Co.
...the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be enforced as written"); Direct Travel v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 625 N.Y.S.2d 221, 222 (1st Dep't 1995) (relieving insurer of duty to defend and duty to indemnify finding "[t]here was no ambiguity in the declara......
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Turner Constr. Co.
...in damage to third-party property distinct from the developers' own “work product.” And in Direct Travel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 214 A.D.2d 484, 485, 625 N.Y.S.2d 221 [1st Dept.1995] ), this Court explained that [986 N.Y.S.2d 78]“[s]ince the claims asserted in the underlying action were f......