Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2013
• Citation: 105 A.D.3d 512,963 N.Y.S.2d 197,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02480
• Parties: STRAUSS PAINTING, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent, Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., Defendant–Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 512

963 N.Y.S.2d 197

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02480

STRAUSS PAINTING, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant,

v.MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent,Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., Defendant–Respondent–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

April 11, 2013.

Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York (Richard H. Bakalor of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Richard Janowitz, Mineola, for Strauss Painting, Inc., respondent-appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (William J. Mitchell of counsel), for Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., respondent-appellant.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling–Cohan, J.), entered November 4, 2011, which granted Mt. Hawley Insurance Company's (Mt.Hawley) motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, granted defendant Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc.'s (the Met) motion for summary judgment declaring that Mt. Hawley is obligated to defend and indemnify the Met in an underlying personal injury action, denied Mt. Hawley's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the Met in the underlying action, and dismissed the Met's second and third cross claims against Mt. Hawley on the basis that they were abandoned; as amended by the order, same court and Justice, entered October 16, 2012, upon reargument, reinstating the Met's second and third cross claims on the basis that they were not abandoned; as further amended by order, same court and Justice, entered October 16, 2012, upon reargument, declaring that Mt. Hawley's duty to defend and indemnify is conditioned upon a finding of negligence by plaintiff or those acting on plaintiff's behalf, unanimously modified, on the law, to 1) deny Mt. Hawley's motion for the dismissal of the complaint as against it upon the declaration that Mt. Hawley has no duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff, 2) to dismiss the Met's third cross claim against Mt. Hawley for expenses incurred in this action, 3) to delete that portion of the court's October 16, 2012 order upon reargument that conditioned Mt. Hawley's duty to defend and indemnify the Met upon a finding of negligence by plaintiff in the underlying action and to declare that Mt. Hawley's duty to defend the Met shall arise and be conditioned upon a finding of an act or omission by plaintiff or one acting on plaintiff's behalf, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that Mt. Hawley is obligated to defend and indemnify the Met in the underlying personal injury action. It is undisputed that there was a contract between plaintiff and the Met and that the contract required plaintiff to purchase insurance coverage naming the Met as an additional insured. It is also undisputed that plaintiff's commercial general liability (CGL) policy from Mt. Hawley contained an additional insured endorsement. The court correctly rejected Mt. Hawley's interpretation of the contract language, as it would be inconsistent with the terms of the contract and the policy ( Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co., L.P. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 65, 70, 926 N.Y.S.2d 471 [1st Dept. 2011] ).

The court also properly rejected Mt. Hawley's argument that it timely disclaimed coverage to the Met on the basis of late notice. The only letters sent by Mt. Hawley to the Met were those intended to preserve its right to disclaim. These letters were...