Reliance Ins. Co. of New York v. Garsart Bldg. Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1986 |
| Citation | 505 N.Y.S.2d 160,122 A.D.2d 128 |
| Parties | RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. GARSART BUILDING CORP., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents; J and J Associates, a partnership, et al., Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents; Planet Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jones, Hirsch, Connors & Bull, New York City (Warren A. Herland and Mark Ian Binsky, of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.
O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson & Collins, White Plains (R. Christopher Owen, on brief), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.
Lipsig, Sullivan & Liapakis, P.C., New York City (Jay W. Dankner, of counsel), for defendants-respondents Horace and Geraldine Hall.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff Reliance Insurance Company of New York is not obligated to either defend or indemnify the defendant Garsart Building Corp. in a pending personal injury action, the third-party defendant Planet Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated March 19, 1985, which denied its motion for renewal of its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as against it, which had previously been denied by a prior order of the same court dated January 11, 1985.
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The stay of this declaratory judgment action, previously granted by order of this court dated April 17, 1985, is vacated in view of the determination of the Workers' Compensation Board authorizing the defendant Horace Hall to withdraw his workers' compensation claim and closing the case.
The defendant Horace Hall was seriously injured in a construction-site accident in Orangeburg, New York, in September 1982. In 1983, Horace Hall and his wife brought suit against the County of Rockland Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter Rockland IDA), the owner or lessee of the construction site; J and J Associates, a partnership (hereinafter J and J), also the owner or lessee of the construction site; Louis C. Pell (hereinafter Pell), the general partner of J and J; and Gus Gekakis Inc., d/b/a Garsart Construction (hereinafter Garsart), the general contractor at the construction site. The complaint asserted several causes of action including negligence, statutory violation, breach of warranty, strict liability in tort, and loss of consortium. The complaint also alleged that Horace Hall (hereinafter Hall) was an independent contractor at the time of his accident. In their answer J and J, Pell, and Rockland IDA denied liability for Hall's injuries and asserted cross-claims against Garsart for contribution and indemnity.
In December 1983, after Hall's personal injury suit had been initiated, the defendant Garsart referred the Halls' complaint to its general liability carrier, Reliance Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Reliance), which commenced the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Garsart (which it sued under the name of Garsart Building Corp.) because Reliance had not been timely notified of the accident or of the suit. J and J, Pell and Rockland IDA were also joined as the defendants in the instant action.
In May 1984, Hall, claiming to be an employee of Garsart, filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Board seeking to recover under Garsart's workers' compensation policy for injuries sustained in the September 1982 accident. J and J, Pell, and Rockland IDA then amended their answer to assert a counterclaim against Reliance, alleging that since Reliance had issued a workers' compensation policy to Garsart it was obligated to respond in damages under the employer's liability provisions of that policy in the event a verdict was returned in favor of J and J, Pell, and Rockland IDA on their cross-claims in the underlying personal injury action against Garsart. Reliance responded to the counterclaim by asserting that the Planet Insurance Company (hereinafter Planet), and not it, had issued the workers' compensation policy to Garsart, and as such, the counterclaim failed to state a cause of action. Reliance also claimed that J and J, Pell, and Rockland IDA lacked standing to assert the counterclaim.
In October 1984, J and J, Pell, and Rockland IDA commenced a third-party action herein against Planet alleging that Hall was an employee of Garsart and seeking a judgment declaring that under the employer's liability provisions of the workers' compensation policy issued by Planet to Garsart, Planet owed a defense and coverage to Garsart on their cross-claims against Garsart in the underlying personal injury action....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Don Lia v. Saporito
...legal interests, and it has been shown that a declaratory judgment would be useful.” Reliance Ins. Co. of New York v. Garsart Building Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 131, 505 N.Y.S.2d 160 (2d Dept.1986); see also Anikeyeva, 89 A.D.3d at 1011, 934 N.Y.S.2d 196 (“[W]here a cause of action is sufficie......
-
Kenyon v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford (DPIC Companies)
...and it has been shown that a declaratory judgment would be useful," (citations omitted) Reliance Insurance Co. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 131, 505 N.Y.S.2d 160 (2d Dept., 1986). The interest of an injured person in the status of a defendant's insurance is implicitly recognized ......
-
Abate v. All-City Ins. Co.
...N.Y.S.2d 617; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 168 A.D.2d 708, 563 N.Y.S.2d 566; Reliance Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 505 N.Y.S.2d 160; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. LiMauro, 103 A.D.2d 514, 481 N.Y.S.2d 90, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 369, 492 N.Y.S.2......
-
Watson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...defend an action" (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civil Practice, p 3001.06d, at 30-64, 30-65). In Reliance Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 131, 505 N.Y.S.2d 160, this court noted that the "New York courts * * * have permitted a party who, although not privy to the i......