U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J&K, LLC
Decision Date | 14 August 2018 |
Docket Number | 16-CV-6176 (MKB) |
Parties | UNITED STATES UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. IMAGE BY J & K, LLC, Sphinx Cleaning Systems, Inc., and Margarita LeClerc, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Robert W. Muilenburg, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Morristown, NJ, for Plaintiff.
Michael E. Longo, Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York, NY, William J. Edwins, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Garden City, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff United States Underwriters Insurance Company ("U.S. Underwriters") commenced the above-captioned action on November 7, 2016, against Defendants Image By J & K, LLC ("Image"), Sphinx Cleaning Systems, Inc. ("Sphinx"), and Margarita LeClerc, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Image in the state court action, Margarita LeClerc v. Image By J & K, LLC and Image Building Maintenance, Inc. , Index No. 703797/2014 (Sup. Ct.) (the "LeClerc Action " ), pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) On September 22, 2017, U.S. Underwriters and Image cross-moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each seeking a declaration as to their rights and duties under the insurance agreement at issue. Image also requests reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with this action. (Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl. Mot."), Docket Entry No. 30; Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. ("Pl. Mem."), Docket Entry No. 31; Image Mot. for Summ. J. ("Image Mot."), Docket Entry No. 25; Image Mem. in Supp. of Image Mot. ("Image Mem."), Docket Entry No. 26.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Image's cross-motion and denies U.S. Underwriters' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff U.S. Underwriters is a North Dakota insurance company, with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, conducting business in New York. (Compl. ¶ 7.)1 Defendant Image is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. (id. ; Image Answer ¶ 7, Docket Entry No. 8.)
On March 4, 2010, Image entered into a "Floor Cleaning/Janitorial Services Agreement" (the "Agreement") with Walgreens Eastern Co., Inc. ("Walgreens"). (Pl. Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local R. 56.1 ("Pl. 56.1") ¶ 2, Docket Entry No. 35.) On March 23, 2011, Image subcontracted the services in the Agreement to Sphinx, a corporation with its principal place of business in New York. (Compl. ¶ 9; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 3.) Under the subcontract, Sphinx, inter alia , cleaned and waxed the floors of the Walgreens Pharmacy in Corona, New York (the "Premises"), upon the issuance of work orders by Image. (Subcontract Agreement between Sphinx and Image ("Subcontract Agreement") 2, annexed to Robert W. Muilenburg Decl. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. ("Muilenburg Decl."), Docket Entry No. 30-2 as Ex. D, Docket Entry No. 30-6.) The work orders detailed the "[s]ervices to be performed, the time frame of the [s]ervices to be performed, and the price to be paid to [Sphinx] for [its] [s]ervices." (Id. ) As part of its subcontract, Sphinx was also required to obtain general liability insurance naming Image as an additional insured. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 7.) Sphinx thus obtained commercial liability insurance policy number CP 3554491 from U.S. Underwriters (the "Policy"). (Id. ¶ 14.)
On June 2, 2011, LeClerc, a Walgreens employee, fell and sustained bodily injuries at the Premises. .) LeClerc testified that on the day of the accident, the Premises opened at 7:30 AM, about forty-five minutes later than usual, because the cleaning crew had left later than usual. (LeClerc Dep. 44:2–23, 47:20–48:6, annexed to Image Mot. as Ex. R, Docket Entry No. 25-19.) Consequently, the floors allegedly had yet to dry and remained wet. (Id. at 48:15–16.) After the Premises were opened to the public, a customer fell down in aisle five. (Id. at 65:20–66:8.) About twenty to twenty-five minutes later, sometime between 8:00 and 9:00 AM, LeClerc also fell down in aisle five, suffering the complained of injuries. (Id. at 14:2–5; 67:12–15.) LeClerc alleges that Image or its agents were responsible for ensuring that the Premises were safe and their failure to properly dry the floors violated their duties of reasonable care and diligence, causing her injuries. (LeClerc Compl. ¶ 22–26.)
The parties dispute whether Image qualifies as an additional insured under the Policy. Section II (A) of the Policy (the "Additional Insured Provision") provides the following definition of an additional insured:
(Policy, annexed as Ex. K to Image Mot. Docket Entry No. 25-12.)
Section II (B) of the Policy (the "Exclusions Provision") also provides certain policy exclusions specific to additional insureds:
(Id. ) The parties agree the term "your" in these sections is a reference to Sphinx, the named insured of the Policy. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 16.)
i. Summary judgment
Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito , 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018) ; see also Cortes v. MTA NYC Transit , 802 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir. 2015). The role of the court "is not to resolve disputed questions of fact but only to determine whether, as to any material issue, a genuine factual dispute exists." Rogoz v. City of Hartford , 796 F.3d 236, 245 (2d Cir. 2015) ( ). A genuine issue of fact exists when there is sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Id. The court's function is to decide "whether, after resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, a rational juror could find in favor of that party." Pinto v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 221 F.3d 394, 398 (2d Cir. 2000).
ii. Declaratory judgment
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). For the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, "actual controversy" means "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, or sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." Golden v. Zwickler , 394 U.S. 103, 108, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969) (quoting Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co. , 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941) ); see also Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC , 663 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2011). Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth. , 415 F. App'x 264, 267 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting S. Jackson & Son, Inc. v. Coffee, Sugar & Cocoa Exch. Inc. , 24 F.3d 427, 431 (2d Cir. 1994) ).
Federal courts have "unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants" under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. , 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) ; Mariah Re Ltd. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 52 F.Supp.3d 601, 623 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ; see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd. , 346 F.3d 357, 359 (2d Cir. 2003) (). The Second Circuit instructs district courts to consider certain prudential factors in determining whether to exercise their discretion to consider a declaratory judgment action:
(1) whether the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Horror Inc. v. Miller
... ... Ins. Co. v. Darden , 503 U.S. 318, 324-25, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 ... 1995) ("One of the factors that did not persuade us was the appellants' simplistic contention that usage of the ... ...
-
Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Mars
...which the parties understood was to be the principal location of the insured risk.’ " U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J & K, LLC , 335 F. Supp. 3d 321, 333 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co. , 16 N.Y.3d 536, 544, 947 N.E.2d 117......
-
Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co.
...Co. of N.Y. , No. 18 Civ. 600 (PGG), 2020 WL 1304085, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (quoting United States Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J & K, LLC , 335 F. Supp. 3d 321, 331 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ); accord City of New York v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , No. 15 Civ. 8220 (AJN), 2017 WL 4386363, ......
-
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co.
... ... 95 (quoting Town of Massena v. Healthcare Underwriters ... Mut. Ins. Co. , 98 N.Y.2d 435, 443 (2002) (internal ... (citing U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J & K, ... LLC , 335 F.Supp.3d 321, 331 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)); cf ... ...