Hamilton v. Khalife

Decision Date24 December 2001
Citation289 A.D.2d 444,735 N.Y.S.2d 564
PartiesLYNDA HAMILTON, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL KHALIFE, Respondent-Appellant, BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, INC., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.<BR>GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL KHALIFE, Respondent-Appellant. (First Intervening Action.)<BR>STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. (Second Intervening Action.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This appeal arises from an automobile accident on January 11, 1995, involving the plaintiff Lynda Hamilton who was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Khalife. Khalife leased his car from the defendant BMW Financial Services NA, Inc. (hereafter BMW).

Khalife's lease with BMW required that he obtain certain minimal liability coverage, and he exceeded that requirement by securing a $300,000 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereafter State Farm Mutual) primary liability policy, as well as a separate $2,000,000 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (hereafter State Farm Fire) excess liability policy. BMW was insured by Gulf Insurance Company (hereafter Gulf), with a "Lessor's Contingent and Excess Liability Policy." The Gulf policy was issued contingent upon BMW securing $100,000/$300,000 coverage from the lessees of its leased vehicles and insured the "Difference to $5 million." The policy provided for a $300,000 per occurrence deductible.

On September 14, 1998, the plaintiff's action to recover damages for personal injuries was settled in open court for $3,000,000. $100,000 was paid by the insurance carrier for the defendant Loretta Schindelman, who is not a party to this appeal. State Farm Mutual paid its limit of $300,000 and State Farm Fire paid its limit of $2,000,000, both on behalf of Khalife. BMW paid $300,000, representing the deductible amount in the Gulf policy, and Gulf paid $300,000 on behalf of BMW. At the time of settlement, Khalife objected to the amount to the extent that it exceeded $2,300,000.

BMW asserts a cross claim for contractual indemnification against Khalife, based upon a provision of its lease to Khalife, which requires the lessee to "hold [BMW] harmless and indemnify [BMW] for all liability, loss and expense arising from the use, condition or ownership of the Vehicle." Gulf, as subrogee of BMW on its indemnification claim, also seeks indemnification against Khalife. State Farm Mutual and State Farm Fire allege that Khalife was an insured under the Gulf policy, and that said policy provided coprimary coverage with the State Farm Mutual policy, thereby entitling them to recover the total sum of $2,126,000 from Gulf. Khalife claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. CNA Insurance Co., 2004 VT 93 (VT 9/17/2004)
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 17 de setembro de 2004
    ...and "the words of the policy remain in full force and effect, except as altered by the words of the endorsement." Hamilton v. Khalife, 735 N.Y.S.2d 564, 566 (App. Div. 2001) (internal quotations omitted); see Waters v. Concord Group Ins. Cos., 169 Vt. at 536, 725 A.2d at 927; see also Prefe......
  • Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Glick
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • 27 de janeiro de 2012
    ...Trust, 56 AD3d 650 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.2008); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.2004) citing to Hamilton v. Khalife, 289 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.2001); Bauman v. Eagle Chase Assoc., 226 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.1996). Logic dictates similar treatment for resolution of......
  • Fin. Servs. Vehicle Trust v. Saad
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 de setembro de 2012
    ...ground that the anti-subrogation rule precluded the plaintiffs from seeking indemnification from him ( see Hamilton v. Khalife, 289 A.D.2d 444, 445–446, 735 N.Y.S.2d 564). Accordingly, since the defendant did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supr......
  • Hamilton v. Khalife
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 26 de abril de 2007
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 5.03 FALSE, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING IN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...York Sports Club Corp., New York Law Journal, p. 19 (Mar. 21, 2001) (N.Y. Civ.) (applied to health club contracts); Hamilton v. Khalife, 289 A.D.2d 444 (2d Dept. 2001) (applied to car rental contracts); Bauman v. Eagle Chase Association, 226 A.D.2d 488 (2d Dept. 1996) (applied to home impro......
  • Chapter One
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Insurance Law Practice (NY)
    • Invalid date
    ...provisions that dictate which of two contract provisions should prevail in the event of an inconsistency).[29] . Hamilton v. Khalife, 289 A.D.2d 444, 735 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep’t 2001) (automobile lessee was not an “insured” under lessor’s contingent and excess liability policy, so that exces......

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