Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Associates, LLC
| Decision Date | 27 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-02515. |
| Citation | 831 N.Y.S.2d 234,37 A.D.3d 760,2007 NY Slip Op 01682 |
| Parties | WALTER GUACHICHULCA, Plaintiff, v. LASZLO N. TAUBER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, VENEZIA INTERIORS CORP., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. IDEAL KITCHEN VENTILATION, INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion of the second third-party defendant First Mercury Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing all claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.
The second third-party defendant First Mercury Insurance Company (hereinafter First Mercury) issued a general liability insurance policy to Ideal Kitchen Ventilation, Inc. (hereinafter Ideal), which contained an exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of an insured if the injury occurs in the course of employment. An Ideal employee was injured in the course of his employment and sued, among others, the general contractor for the project during which the accident occurred, Venezia Interiors Corporation (hereinafter Venezia). Venezia brought a second third-party action against, among others, First Mercury, seeking a declaration that First Mercury must defend and indemnify it as a potential additional insured under the policy, and Ideal asserted a cross claim against First Mercury. First Mercury moved for summary judgment dismissing all claims insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court determined that there was a triable issue of fact and denied First Mercury's motion.
An exclusion from coverage "must be specific and clear in order to be enforced" (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311 [1984]), and an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer (see Ace Wire & Cable Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 NY2d 390, 398 [1983]; Bassuk Bros. v Utica First Ins. Co., 1 AD3d 470, 471 [2003]; Ramirez...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
QBE Ins. Corp. v. ADJO Contracting Corp.
...), and “an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer” (Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Assoc., LLC, 37 A.D.3d 760, 761, 831 N.Y.S.2d 234 ). Here, the term “multi-track housing development,” which is undefined in the policy, does not have a “c......
-
Qbe Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contracting Corp.
...and “an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer” (Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Assoc., LLC, 37 A.D.3d 760, 761, 831 N.Y.S.2d 234). Here, the term “multi-track housing development,” which is undefined in the policy, does not have a “clear......
-
Qbe Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contracting Corp.
...and “an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer” ( Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Assoc., LLC, 37 A.D.3d 760, 761, 831 N.Y.S.2d 234). Here, the term “multi-track housing development,” which is undefined in the policy, does not have a “clea......
-
Soho Plaza Corp. v. Birnbaum
...and an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause must be construed most strongly against the insurer” ( Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Assoc., LLC, 37 A.D.3d 760, 761, 831 N.Y.S.2d 234;see Ace Wire & Cable Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 N.Y.2d 390, 398, 469 N.Y.S.2d 655, 457 N.E.2d 761;Howa......