Essex Ins. Co. v G-1, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Essex Ins. Co. v G-1, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 30795(U) January 26, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 08-44658 Judge: Daniel M. Martin Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX No. 08-44658 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS. PART 0 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: 1,1011 DANIEL JUSilCC M. MARTIN orthe Supreme Court MOTION DATE 4i2CJ!11 AD.! DA·T'E 11/15/11 MoL Scq #(J()l - MG ---------------------------------------------------------------)( I'SSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plcuntiff, CLAUSEN MILLER p.e Attorney for PL.1ll1tiff One Chase Manhattan PIa/a Nt\-v York, New York 10005 CREEDON & GILL PC Attorney for Defendant (J-I, Inc, 24 Wooclbmc Avenue, Sulle 14 Northport, New York 11768 KRAL CLERKIN REDMOND RYAN I'ERR Y & VAN ETTI'N, LLI' Attonlt.:y for Defenc1clllt Salt Constr. Corp, 538 Bro8dholJo\v Road Melville, Nev,! York 1 1747 - agnll1st - MAZZARA & SMALL, Pc. Attorney for Defendant Silverlll1ll1g Woodworking ROOVeterans lViemomillliglnvay' I lauppaugc, G-I. INC, SALT CONSTRUCTION CORP., SILVERLINING WOODWORKING.INc:., FRAME TO FINISH, INC, and VINCENT Cl;\COIA, as Adl11l1listrator for the Estate of JUAN Ci\lZLOS SALINA, New York II78S WILLIAM F. FARRELL, ESQ. Attorney for Dctcndant Frame to Finish 214 ROGlllOkc Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 ALAN Defcildants R. CHORNE, ESQ tor Defendant Vinccni 41 Madison A venue, 40dl I loor N~w York, Nc'vv York 100 I0 ,A.ttorney C];lCOl<l -----------------------------------~---------------------------)( iJPUllllle.: I,)liuwing [ldl)crs 1111111bei·cd I 10_~ I·cad 011 this mOIH)ll f(1rSUllllll;IIV illdL~IllCIll. Nui!el' ol'vlnil<'liI Ord~T iO SII"\\' elliS,: ami sllpporling ]lapcrs 1-17 . Nutice.:of Cross Mul lUll dnd suppurJIll:; papers __ . ;\ Ils,\'l'l"i Il~.;\ Ifld,lv Ib Jild slIllj10rlillg 1';lpc'I'S 1,'\-13 ,Rcplymg i\ fiitiavil.s ,Ind slIPIK1I'IIIlgP'II)LTS 25-29 ,OllllT pl~llllli 1"1-11 _ ~ ICIIIllJJ_I.l!ilulll b:::: ,lj' [* 2] h,;<.:x IllS, Co. \' (i-I. 1111.:. 11ll1e'x )\in. OX--+4()):-; Page .2 ORDI:RF:D Ihat [be motion by the plaintiffi'or alll)r<.!er pursuanl [0 CPLR 321~ granling SUnll]}ary judglllcill declaring [hat it has no duty to defcnd or ilH.lemniry dl.?lCndan[ (J-I. 11lL'Ill;l wrongful de;l1h aclion entilled (/WCUf(lI· Salt COIlSf!". CO!"I'. (Sup Ct. SuJTi.)lk COUllly. Indt'-'i. No. UX1Jl)02 J. i~ granted. This is all action for aJudgmen£, illlera/ia. declaring that Ihe plaintirrhas no dut)' 10 defend ilr 1Il(J,.:1l1il (j - I. lilt.:. ("(/-1 ") m Ihe under! ying wrongful deal h ac:tiOll pUrSlIal1[ [0 a cnmlllerc 1<11 i ry genL'ra I liability ill~lIrallCe policy issued by the plaintiff to G-I as named insured. etli.x:tive July (1. 20(17 through .Iulv 6. ~()OX. On Novemher 20, 2007, Juan Carlos Salina was working 1ll an eiL'va[l'd an.:a al a L'OllstruL'tl()1l sile loeatL'd at 37 Nos[rand Parkway, Shelter Island, Ncw York. when he fell and sllstainl'd seriuus lIlJUrlL'Sresulting in his death. Tile underlying wrongful death action was cOllll1ll'llecd un Apnl 14, lOOX. It appears li·om [he complall1t III Ihe undcrlYlllg aClion thar Salt Conslruclion ('Olp. C·Sa1t·')_ till' general COl1tr;ll'tor hired to perform construction and renovation work at thl.?premises. hired Framc 10 Finish, Illc and SilVl'rllnlllg Woodworkll1g, fne. as subcotllractors, and that Salllla was employed hy Framc to Finish. lllc. at the time of his accident. In or about October 2008. Sail commenced a thirdp;m)' ~lc[iol1 against Frame to Finish, Inc. and a second third-party action against G- t, In which Sal[ alleges, illft'I" alia, that G- I cntered into a contract with Salt whereby G-l agreed to perform certain supervisory. inspection, construction, and renovation services in which It was engaged on thL' date ofrhc accld ¢.. 'lli. Salt pil'acb rOllr causcs of action 111 sccond tlmd-party COl1lplalilt. Thc l"irst ,md second the C~IUSCS1' ,Il'titlll lIrc lor contrlbutiun and common-law Indcmnificatiol1. on the theory Ihal 1r S~lll is ilCld 0 liable for allY P()rtltlll or Salina's u<ll11ages in the undcrlYlng aetlOll, ti'lOC'iC'llllagcs \Vcre causcd, 111 d Wlll)lc nr III P;ll"\. by (i-I·s negllgcnt acts and omISSIOI1S~ [hlrd, I'orcontl·adu'll [hc illdclllllilll'allOll: ;!Ill! thc lillirth. li)[· hrc;]cIl ol'eontracl, alleging that (i-I failed 10 procure geller:i1llabilily c()vcragc Il,lllllll!:, S;III:h :111 ,lddi(il)l1:11 insured. Notwithstanding the alleg:ltlnlls COIll:lined in Ihc liHlrlh C<lLlS":: ofadl,)ll, II :lppc;lro; lh,ll Salt IS;lIl addltlOn<l1 insurcd under the policy. On Novcmhcr 21,1007, till' plaintirrreceiVl'd:l. cl;um Iloli(e oflhG ;Iccidellt. !3y leuer d,lled N()vcl1lhlT 2K, 2()()7. as o;upplcmenlcd by letter datcd DCl'l'lllber I~, 2007, tile plaIntll"!" :ldvlsed Ci-I tl1;11 tllt'["L'\Vas 110C(Wer,lge for Ill(' claim because (i) to the eXlent S,11ina ClHli(\ be consldercd ;111 clllploYL"C(lr (I-I. the ptllicy l'-"eludes COVl'r,lge Ii.l!" boddy l1'lJlIryto clllpinyces Dr,lllY lIlsun.:d, ill1d {II) the policy ¢.. '-"eludc:, I'OVcragL' ror hodily injury sustallled hy the cmploYl'e or another contr;le\Or l\ Her il rce ¢.. 'lv,-'d ;1 L"npyor the second third-party C()lllpJamt on Nowmbcr 14. 200~. thc pl,lIl1tllT advi. __d ()- I hy Jener c daled IkcemhL'r 2. 2()08 111<.11 it would provide a gralUitous det'cnsL', bultlJal therc was no cOVL'rage It)r the claim Ii.)]·the addillonal reasons that (ill) the policy cxcludcs coverage for injury or damage arising oul of tile alleged negligence or other wrongdoing in the hiring, training, placemcnl. supervisiun or 1ll0niIOring or olhl..'rs by an insured. (iv) the policy cxcludes coverage l()r injury or damage which an insured is nbligalcd to pay by reason or the assumption or llabi lilY in <.1onlract or agrcemenL unless the c Ilanility was as:-;ulllcd in an "insured contracl" and the injury or damagc oeculTcd suhsequent tn its cxecutioll. and (\.) thL' pulley excludes coverage for claims arising OUIor a hreach or cOnlracl. 13y lell\.T d;lled Ikceillber 15. :!()OX. Ihe plamtllI havltlg appar1'11I1yJUSI Il'arned Ihat (i-I was hired to perfurm Sill' ,>;l!~'IY lhe job si[e. supplemented its Dl'cemher 2, 200X letter by advising [hal there was no c{)\·erage 1(\1· [* 3] l:sSL"\ Ills. ('n. v. (i-I. Indn Nl). (),'\--l-t(l:)S IIlI.:. rur the chllm bet.:;IUSl.' vI) the pollcy excludes ( which (i-l per/()]"lllcd at the slie. Paragraph 6 oCthe polu.:y's Combination cuverage lor any safety or risk lllanilgclllcllI operations Genera! Endorsemcnt provides, in rclcv:lm pan. that ThiS insurance docs not apply to liability for "Bodily Injury" to: (1\) an "elllploYl'l'" of any insured arislIlg out of and in ihe course or employment or while performing dulics related 10 the conduct of an lllsured's bUSiness; or (13) any injury or damagc to any otllt:r persoll induding but 1l00limited to spouse. child. pan~nL brother. sister or relative of the '\:mployce" as a consequcnce of (A). Paragraph I (I)) ofthl.' policy" s Additional Conditlons Endorsement provides that -'III r conlractors or suhcontractors are used * * * there IS no coverage under tillS policy lOr 'bodily lllJury" 'p('"rsonal injury' or 'propcrty damage' sustained by any contractor. sel C-employed contractor, and/or subeomnJclOL. or allY cmployee. leased worker, temporary \Vorker or volunteer help of sam c." Paragraph 10 (c) ofthc policy's CombinJtlon General Endorsement provides that "[t)his insurance does not apply to 'bodily injury' * * * arising out of": caused by or contributed to as a result ofalkgcd negligence or other wrongdoing in the hll"lllg. tmllllng, placemcllt, supervision. or monitoring of others by the insured'" Seclion V or the POlICY'S Comlllercml General Ltabillty Coverage Form defines ·'hodIly lIlJury" to Illclude deatllrcsl1lting li'om such Injury. Section I (1\), paragraph 2 (b) orthe policfs Commercial (Jenera! Liability Coverage Form excludes coverage lor bodily injury or property damage ·'fDr which till.' il1sLlrl.'dis oblig,ltcd to pay damages by reason of the <lssumptlon of liability ill a contract or agn::cll1cnt"; lJl)wever, tllc cxcluslon docs not apply to liability for damages (I) Tha(' the Illsun:d would have had In the absence of tile contract or agrecmcIW (2) !\.,)sLllllCdIII ,\ eontrac(' or agreement that is an "insured l:0I11T~\ct",', * or :1' l.c~ISCol'prclllises cxcluding mdl:11111lfiClilOll1'O dllOther I~}I"bl1l~lge hy i"ir'c [n l prCII\ISCSwhile n:l1(cd to you or lcmporanly occupicd by you, ,Ind/or (11) - l:ascmcilt ,lgrCCI11Cn! .\CCPl ill conncction with cOllstruction or lkmoll!IOIl operatiolls on or ~ldJ'lcCllt C to a railroad. and/or (C) - Jndclllniric~ltlOllora municipality ,\S reqUired by tlnlin<lncc, cxcep! In conncctlon with work for thc municipality, and/or (I)) SidctracK ilgrt:elllcnt or an)' C,lselllcn! or licensc agreemcnt III connection With vehicle or pedestrian privak r;lilmad crossing al grade. <lnd/or (E) - l:kvator 11l:l1l1tcl1al1cc ilgrcCllll'IlL (1\). l'ar;l~r;lpb 5 or till· pollcy's Combinutlon Gelll'ral Endorsement provides Illat "lllhls insurance dncs nOI ilppl y to c l:li1lls arising out a f breach of contracl. whether wrincll or ora I. ex pn.:ss or iIllp 1ied. Impl icd-llllaw. or Illlplicd-in-lilCt contracl." Paragraph I oCthe policy's Combination (jcneral EndorseJl1cnt provides thai "jcIO\'erage under thiS lllsurancc IS limited to operatlolls descnbed undcr ·bUSllll·SS (k'scriptioll' and/or 'classl ficatlon- on the declarations' pagcs of" policy'" The policy's declaration p;I1,,'I..·.; li.'a (j-I .s business description as "contractor" and its ciassl ticatiolls as "Contraclors- EXCl'llflVL' [* 4] [SS('X IllS. CU, V, (j-I. ]11<.:'. Index N\l, [J:\-4465i\ 1'<I~l'-+ SlI]llTVI ,ors or 1~Xl'CUIVC S upen ntendcn : t D\vg.'· dlld "( '~lrpl'ntry-llllenor" b," "Cumracrors-S ub---Constl Rl'pill dE rect I()110 f I-::21';lI11IY i The pbllHiJYll0\V moves for summary judgment' declaring th~1tIt has no duty to defend or Illdc1l1l1J1'y (;-1 III the underlYlllg action. Thc duty ohm Insurer to provide a defense for its insured IS broader than its duty to mdenHllfy (Sea/JOard SI/r. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d J04, 486 NYS2d 873 [19841), and arises whenever the allegations ol'tl1(;' unckl"lying complaint potenllal1y gIve rise to a covered CI;11I11, where the Illsurer Ilil'i or ,lCtlwl knowledge Ofj~lcts establishing a reasonable pOSSibility of coverage (Frontier Insulation COllrrs. I' Merchants lvlut. Ins. Co., 91 NY2d 169, Cl67 NYS2d 98::2[1997]). However, (:l1lsduly does Ilot c.\tclld tll cl~1111lS vvJlIch arc not covered by the policy, Il1cluding those vvJm:h ~ln::specil-lcdly excluLied I"rolll covcrage (Campagna & Langel/a v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, LOlldoll, 3US AD2d 51h, 750 NYS2c1 346 [20lJ3:I; Natiollal Gell. fns. Co. l' Hartford Ace. & IIltlem. Co., 106 AU2d 414, h() I NYS~d 4 [1993J, 30 w. I5,Ii St. Owners Corp. l' Trm'ders fns. CO., 165 AD2d 731, %3 NYS2d 784 1:1990 I). 011 iI mutltl11 lor sunllllary Judgment. a liability lIlsurer denying the duty to defcnd and Illdelllllil\' has thl' bllrd~ll "to cstabltsh thalthc Injury complained offalls outside the coverage nrthe policy 01' IS eXel1l11teci v reason of an excluslonarv ~ b~ clause * * *. If the insurer can establish, as a matter ol'lil\\l. [l1;lt the CbUllS against the assured arc unambiguously excepted from coverage, sUlllm;lfy judgmellt III Cilvllr of the insurer is proper"' V)'mith Jeall, Inc. v Royal Glo!Je IllS. Cos., 139 AD2d 503, S()4, 52(1 NYS2d ()04, W5 lI0SS]), r:xclUSlOns ii·olll coverage "must be spccltlc and clear In order to be l'llforccd" (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., slIpra at 31 L 486 NYS2d at 876 [1984]) and (lillbiguities ill exclUSionary clauses arc to be construed 1110ststrongly against the lIlsurcr (sue .--,lee IFire & Cable Co. \' Aerl/a Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 NY2d 390, 469 NYS2d 655 I: 1083]). Howevcr. an ulwmblguolls poliCY prOVISion must be :il,,'corded its plain and ordinary meaning (see Sanabria I' ..-llIIer/caul/ollll! AssaI'. ('0., ()S N'{.2d SCj6, 508 NYS2d 416 [I ()86]), alld a court may not c!Jsrcgard the pl:l111me;llling oCthe policy':; 1;1I1gU<lge OI"dcr to tlnd an ambiguity where nOlle eXIsts (Guacliidll/lcal! Laszlo N. Tauher & Assoc., in .17 AD_lei 7()(),;';:1 I NYS2d 234 [2007J!. Onee the insurer shows that an CXChlSIOIlapplll~s, the burdell sllills to the Illsured to establish that an exception to the exclUSion applies (,vel' Northville ludlls. Corp. \' /VarioJllll UI/ion Fire /IIS. CO. (~lPittsbllrglt, Pa., 80 NY2d (121, ()57 N'lS2d 5(14 I: I\)(J7lL Ilere, the Court finds that the plailltiffis entitled to slIll1mal)'judglllentlll Its tilv(lI". As to the Cduses 0 I'act IOil j ()I"con trib uti on :.Ill COIlll1l01l-]a tndemmlicat lOn, rmragrapll I d \V f lile po Iicy' s /\(ldlll()tlal ('olldltIOIIS r;:ndorsclllent expressly e.\cluch:s coverage for bodily in.tury (1Ill'llIdllli! de:lthl :'Ll.st;lIllcdby all ell1ployee orany cOlltr~lci()r or subcontr;lctor (see Essex Ins. CO. II Gial1ljJcrrll;,zi,SUI) Ct, t)lICCIIS( (lUnly, Nov. 17.2010. Index Nl,l. ()t}-I h9(" /;.-ssexIns. CO. I' /Jari/laro, lOI () N\' Slip {)p _,.I I I 11.1 II SLIp C1. CJUCt'll.S j County 20 I(f]: l:\'sex / !IS. CO, I,' Bossart Bldrs., ~()I() NY >';111' 3 I 142fl j I ()p ISlip C1. Quel'ns Cl1lllllY 20 I() I~ set' Gabriele l' Lynd/Jurst Resitlelllia/ COJ/lllll/llity, l()OK WI hur _";';}';:'i ...1J, 2()O~ NJ Sliper Unpllb LJ-~XIS 2hClS [App ])IY], ccrtificario/l dcnied I()5 NJ 514, 95(1 !\2d l)](1 IlOOXI)_ /\Itilough the Illsureds assert that therc IS an ambiguity because the pulicy docs I]l)t dcllllC tl1(' tl'l"lllS"cuiHmclor"' (lild "subculltracror," the COlirt tlnds no cll11blgUIl')'. As With the Intcrprd~ltl()11 01'<111)' l"tll1lrilct. the lillilllllJlg1l01lS terms of an Insurance policy must be dccorde(llhelr pl~lln atld ordlll:lry Itlc:lIlillg (e.g_ TeicllllUl1l1l I' COf1l11lI1l1i(F Hmp. oj" rv. Sujj()//c;)7 NY2d 514, ()4() NYS2d 47211 ')%I), un () [* 5] bs<--'\ 111.S. n. \I. (;-1 C Index Nu Oi-;-44(1);'; Inc. r1bck'" Law Dic1iollilry defines "contractor," illl!.!!" {{Ihl, (IS "[oJne \-vho contracts to do \\lurk or pnJvldc suppllcs fur (lllother"'~ "subcontractor" is defined as "[o]nc who is awarded a portIon of an cxlsting c()lltr~ld by a contrnctor" (Black's Law Dictionary [9'11cd 20(91). II is alleged 111 the underl)illlg cumplallll th(jt al the time of his accident, Sal1l1a was employed by Frame w l-"illlSl1,Jnc., a SubCUlllrdl"l{)I' al the construction site. Even aSSUllllJ1g, as the lJ1sureds now contend, that Frame to Fillish, Inc. W~IS hired Ilot by either ol'tllelll but by Silverlining Woodworking, lnc.-Itsclf~l subcontTdclOl'--the ('nun IIIHI." the lemlS "contractor" and "subcontractor" suffiCiently dcrillitc and expansive to Illclude a sLlbsubcontractor (s('e' U.s. Underwriters filS. CO. I! Beckford, 1995 \VL 23754, 1998 US [)l.sr LF-:XIS 57.:1 I.ED NY IY98·1). Nor, despite the IJlsurcds' vague claims to the contrary, does it appear Ihat the plaITllllT j';lIled 10 timet y dISCla 1111overage. As to the causes 0 f action for COiltractual indenl11iti C~I c tion (]nd brcuc h of COil ract, section 1 (A)., paragraph 2 (b) of the poliCY's Commer<:lal General Liability Coverage and t par,lgraph 5 of the policy's CombInation ('Jeneral Endorsement expressly exclude coverage for iJ<lhdlly ,ISSlltlled under a contract and for claIms ansllie, out of breach of contract (sec Preserver IllS. CO. I' Ry!Ja, 10 NY3d 635, 862 NYS2d 820 [2008]); neither of the insureds L:vcn attcmpts lO dClllonSlr<lte tht: ;]pplic~lbilily ofth(' "insured contract" exception to thc exclusion t{)r liability assumed under a contl"<lC1. Accordingly. thc plaintiff is entitled to the entry of Judgmcnt" declaring that it IS not ()bligated to del\:lld ur indcl1ll11ty G-l 111 underlYlIlg action. the To the extent that the pbllltJlT, by \"lay of thIs action, seeks declaratory defendants, the Court notes that the plaintiff docs not seek summary judgment rellel'relative lU the nthcr as to those cbims. 32; The Court dIrects that the claim as to whieh sUlllmary judgmenl was granted is hereby sellwell ,lilt! thell the pclrl1es' lcn1cllnlng (1,11mSshall cOllttnu7c ('PLR [el [1]) ,' /l Dated. J,llHwry 16, 2012 /' ---.X..- ~CIN/\I, i)ISI'OSITION

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.