Sanabria v. American Home Assur. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1986
• Citation: 508 N.Y.S.2d 416,68 N.Y.2d 866,501 N.E.2d 24
• Parties: , 501 N.E.2d 24 Benjamin SANABRIA et al., Respondents, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, and Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 416

508 N.Y.S.2d 416

68 N.Y.2d 866, 501 N.E.2d 24

Benjamin SANABRIA et al., Respondents, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, and Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 14, 1986.

Arthur N. Seiff, New York City for appellant.

Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., New York City for American Home Assur. Co., respondent.

Gerald Orseck, Liberty for Benjamin Sanabria and others, respondents.

William Rosen, Co. Atty., Monticello for Muriel O'Connor, as Sullivan County Com'r of Social Services, respondent.

Stephen L. Oppenheim, Village Atty., Monticello for Village of Monticello, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 113 A.D.2d 193, 495 N.Y.S.2d 533 should be reversed, with costs, and all claims against Public Service Mutual Insurance Company dismissed.

"bear the responsibility of determining the rights or obligations of parties under insurance contracts based on the specific language of the policies" (State of New York v. Home Indem. Co., 66 N.Y.2d 669, 671, 495 N.Y.S.2d 969, 486 N.E.2d 827) and unambiguous provisions must be given their plain and ordinary meaning (United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229, 232, 501 N.Y.S.2d 790, 492 N.E.2d 1206). Here, the insurance contract issued by Public Service to the Village of Monticello named as insureds the "Village of Monticello, New York and Board of Water Commissioners", and although various additionally named and described persons and organizations are designated additional insureds, the policy does not name, describe or otherwise refer to individual police officers employed by the village as insureds. Under the terms of the policy, therefore, Public Service had no obligation to defend or indemnify the individual police officers. Nor would the principle enunciated in Schiff Assoc. v. Flack, 51 N.Y.2d 692, 435 N.Y.S.2d 972, 417 N.E.2d 84 have any applicability here since these officers, having retained their own counsel promptly, cannot be said to have "sufferthe detriment of losing the right to control own defense" (Schiff Assoc. v. Flack, supra, at p. 699, 435 N.Y.S.2d 972, 417 N.E.2d 84).

We have considered respondents' other claims and find them to be without merit.

WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JJ., concur in memorandum.

MEYER, J., taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4...