Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford
Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
Citation | 64 N.Y.2d 419,477 N.E.2d 441,488 N.Y.S.2d 139 |
Parties | , 477 N.E.2d 441 SERVIDONE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent, v. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Where an insurer breaches a contractual duty to defend its insured in a personal injury action, and the insured thereafter concludes a reasonable settlement with the injured party, is the insurer liable to indemnify the insured even if coverage is disputed? While disagreeing with the court below that the insurer must indemnify the insured irrespective of actual coverage, we hold that the burden is on the insurer to establish that the loss was not covered by the policy.
On March 14, 1972, during construction on a Government flood control project in New Jersey, John Cuttino, an employee of plaintiff, Servidone Construction Corporation (the insured), fell from a tower and as a result was paralyzed from the waist down. In addition to receiving workers' compensation benefits through Servidone, which functioned as general contractor for the project, in November 1976 Cuttino brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States, owner of the project, in the New Jersey Federal court contending that he had not been provided a safe place to work. The United States, in turn, commenced a third-party action against Servidone, asserting a right of indemnity both under common law (alleging that its negligence was at most passive or secondary) and under the construction contract (which expressly placed responsibility on the contractor for safety precautions to protect the workers).
For defense of the third-party action, Servidone looked to defendant, Security Insurance Company, its compensation and liability insurance carrier (the insurer). Security responded that, pursuant to an exclusion in the policy, a loss based upon any obligation the insured had assumed by contract was outside coverage, but it nonetheless agreed to defend Servidone as to both claims asserted by the Government, reserving its right to disclaim liability for recovery based on contractual indemnification. The litigation proceeded. On February 21, 1978, a pretrial order was entered, which defined the third-party action as one "in contract for indemnity." Security immediately withdrew, contending that the United States had formally abandoned its claim for common-law indemnification, leaving only its claim under the construction contract, and since the policy excluded losses based on contractual obligations assumed by the insured, the insurer had no further obligation. Servidone engaged new counsel, who prepared for trial and sought a declaratory judgment against Security. When Servidone in 1980 notified Security that it had an opportunity to settle with Cuttino for $50,000, Security made no response. On March 18, 1980, Servidone advised Security that it intended to settle for $50,000, again met by silence.
Before the settlement with Cuttino was concluded, Special Term entered an order in Servidone's action declaring that the insurer had breached its contractual obligation by failing to provide an unqualified defense and directing that Security pay Servidone any damages flowing from the breach, including the reasonable value of legal services incurred in defense of the third-party action, with damages to be determined at trial; the court, however, declined to pass on the question whether Security had a duty to indemnify, finding it premature, 106 Misc.2d 118, 430 N.Y.S.2d 991. That order is not on appeal. What is challenged is Special Term's subsequent order, on a motion to reopen made after payment of the settlement, granting the insured summary judgment in the amount of $50,000, which the Appellate Division affirmed, two Justices dissenting.
Neither Security's breach of its duty to defend nor the reasonableness of the settlement amount is disputed. The difference centers on the effect to be accorded the insurer's contention that the loss is simply not within the policy coverage. Without finding that the loss was covered, the Appellate Division majority imposed a duty to indemnify on the insurer because, based on the claims asserted, it perceived a possibility of coverage and concluded that the settlement constituted "damages it necessarily suffered by reason of Security's failure to meet its contractual burden of protecting Servidone from attack." (102 A.D.2d 59, 63, 477 N.Y.S.2d 725.) The court noted that one of the alternative causes of action was on the face of the complaint plainly within the policy and the other arguably covered; "where a claim for coverage exists and the insurer breaches its duty to defend, it must indemnify the insured for a reasonably arrived-at settlement because it is impossible to determine on what theory of liability plaintiff might have prevailed." (Id., at p. 63, 477 N.Y.S.2d 725.) The dissent, by contrast, found no evidence that the settlement was necessitated by the insurer's withdrawal, and concluded that the contract of insurance does not create a duty to indemnify unless it is first established that the insured's liability is within the coverage. As noted by the dissent, "Servidone freely chose settlement rather than trial * * * [a] choice * * * influenced by a reasonable prediction that, should liability be established on its part, it would not be within the coverage of the policy." (Id., at p. 65, 477 N.Y.S.2d 725.) Finding issues of fact as to coverage, the dissenting Justices would have remitted the case for a plenary trial.
We agree with the dissent that an insurer's breach of duty to defend does not create coverage and that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopeman Bros., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
...difference under New York law between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. See Servidone Const. Corp v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419, 424, 488 N.Y.S.2d 139, 477 N.E.2d 441 (1985) ("The duty to indemnify is, however, distinctly different. The duty to defend is measured a......
-
Servants of Paraclete, Inc. v. Great American Ins.
...no coverage exists, the court has improperly enlarged the bargained-for coverage. Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419, 488 N.Y.S.2d 139, 142, 477 N.E.2d 441, 444 (1985). Accord Afcan v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co., 595 P.2d 638 (Alaska 1979); Tim......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. WR Grace & Co.
...F.Supp. at 1379. The duty to indemnify requires a covered loss under the policy. Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance Co., 64 N.Y.2d 419, 423, 488 N.Y.S.2d 139, 143, 477 N.E.2d 441, 445 (1985); see W.R. Grace & Co., 896 F.2d at 874 (citing Servidone); Uniroyal, 707 F.Supp. at ......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Cablevision Systems Dev. Co.
...determined by comparing the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the policy in question. See Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance Co., 64 N.Y.2d 419, 424, 488 N.Y. S.2d 139, 142, 477 N.E.2d 441, 444 (1985). If the allegations of the complaint, liberally construed, ar......
-
NY Court Of Appeals Revisits Controversial K2 Decision
...appears to be a recognition by the Court that it overlooked its prior holding in Servidone Constr. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co., 64 N.Y.2d 419 (1985), that a Court cannot "[enlarge] the bargained for coverage as a penalty for breach of the duty to defend." The decision in K2 markedly diverges......
-
Rare New York Court Of Appeals Reversal In Significant Insurance Coverage Decision
...New York precedent sometimes referred to as the "Servidone" rule (Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, [64 N.Y. 2d 419 (1985)] namely, that where an insurer had improperly refused to defend its insured, the insurer was precluded from re-litigating the amount of damag......
-
The New York Court Of Appeals Considers The Consequences Of A Liability Insurers Breach Of The Duty To Defend
...reargument was that the Court of Appeals overlooked one of its prior decisions, Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance Co., 477 N.E.2d 441 (N.Y. 1985), which held that a carrier in breach of its duty to defend could rely on policy exclusions to dispute a duty to indemnify. The c......
-
K2 Investment: The New York Court Of Appeals' Recent Ruling Has Significant Impact On An Insurers Assessment Of Its Duty To Defend A Claim Under A Liability Policy
...highest court. The ruling appears to have overlooked the Court's opinion in Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security Insurance Company 64 N.Y. 2d 419 (NY 1985) where it stated "an insurer's breach of duty to defend does not create coverage and that . . . there can be no duty to indemnify un......
-
Chapter 6 Insurance Coverage in an Environmental Case: Focus on Claims Handling
...Ins. Co. of New York, 321 Ga. App. 103, 108, 741 S.E.2d 228, 233 (2013) [19] Servidone Const. Corp. v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419, 424, 477 N.E.2d 441 (1985) ("The duty to indemnify is, however, distinctly different. The duty to defend is measured against the allegations of pl......
-
CHAPTER 3 CERCLA LITIGATION
...This policy is referred to as "CGL" insurance. [72] E.g., Servidone Construction Corporation v. Security Insurance Company of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419, 423-424, 477 N.E.2d 441, 444 (1985). [73] The duty to defend attaches when the complaint alleges facts which conceivably might fall within t......