Download as PDF
Pinon v 99 Lynn Ave LLC
- IXX. 205 - lOCI. 207 -1(}lJ.129-2JO. 24()· 2-17. R<:plyillgAflid:IVlb alld supporlll1g papers !IN - 114. 156· 157. !IN.}1 0 - 11 L 248 - 249 ; Other memoranda of law 10. lX - ~<).51 - 52. 75 - 711.77 - 7S. 177. ~I·L 131 -131. (,hid ,tllel IIC,1I c()(ldsd III $UPPOlI "lid opp",'lCd to tilt Ii,otioll) it is. illg ORDERED that th~sc motions are hereby consolidated lor puq)oses of this dCh:rmin ot"the "Insured' 111
cOllllecliOn with his general
superviSion ot" :->uchopera\lons, and.
(b) "boelily injury"' [0 any independent l'(mlractor or to any employcc
or such contraclor or 10 any obligation orany "insured" to indclllllity
or eonlnbutc with another because 01"damages arising Qui of the
Lexing,ton conlends that Ihe Lexington poiJeies exclude covcrage for bodily in.iury to PlI10n hl'Clll.";l·
hl' was an employee of PMC and Ihat Ihe 105 Lynn policy docs no! apply III any case. as !he ]1billlifr:->
allcgl' [l1al Pinon was inJured at 99 Lynn Avenue, Hampton Bays. New York. Lcxinglon ,hscrtS Ihallho.:
policy l:l1lguage clearly ,lmI'Ild:->(he LC_\lllgton pol1clcs 10 exclude coverage lindeI' ll1c.";ccirculllsiances
\1I.,:s]1llehc deciSIOn orthe Bo,ml that PIllon was nOI ,Kling inll1c course of his dutil.'s (1:-> o.:lllploYl'C1)1'
l'Me :ltthc, lime of ills ,lccllknL It argucs that Pinon was all employce ot"PMC purslI,lill!n Sel'jJOI1(11)
ilbnvc. rC~:lrdlcss or ills :lctiol1s 01' (he t~lL'trh CPI
2(J():\ I~ (~lNeJt' Yor/i I' Ewftlstoll Ins. Co .. .)lJ AU3d ISJ, ~n()NYS2c1 2()t) r=d l)cpl 20()7j). /\11
Insurer's duty to delclld arises whenever, as IS the ea:>c here, '"the allcgalluns \Vllhll1the rOlIr l'(wtlcrs ()!'tlll'
underlYing (Oll1pl,llnt pOlL'l1tJally gIve rise to a covcred chum" (Worth COllstr, CO. I' Admira/III.\'. Co. I()
NY.-1d411,':+ I 5. X59 NYS2d I()I 12008l quoting Froutier Insulatioll COlltrs. I' /VIercltallts iHttt. Ins. Co,
t) I NY2d Ib9, h67 NYS2d 91'\2 ).
FUI·thcI', "an insured should not be denied all Inltl~ll recours •..10 ~l
Pillon v 99 Lynn /.l.,.
Inde:\ 1\10. OK-1J79S
clrrier merely because another calTicr may also be responsIble"
C011'" SO NY2d (AU, 655, 593 NYS2d 9()6 ).
(Continental Cas. CO. I~' t/pid-Amcrimll
I-kn:, the laur corners of the complaint 111 Pinon action potentiully give rise tn .~ In hiS affirmatioll, counscl for the plaintifb contends that the l11ultiple motions for
summary JlId~ment made hcrein arc prcmature as dIscovery has not been completed.
lie a"scrls that thc
plaintiffs' expert has established the need to proceed with discovery to IcJrn ol"the ~ll'liollS takcll by the
ddendants to make the work site safe. which detendant would have had thc responsihllity 10 post signs \)r
warnings at the beach. and which defendant was responsible for the reconstruction or the hcach and
hulkhcad. Although the plaintin:'i' cxpert does raise SOllle orthese issues. (] rcvlcw of"th •....
rC\'eals Ihat hc docs not address the defendants· contentions that Pinon was thc soIL' proximate caUSl' of his
IllJuries. In addirioll_ an eXJlcrt "may not reach a conclusion by assu1l1mg lll jects is wltlwlItll'lel"ll' /\s dISl'Us'il'd
;lbovc.;1 review ol'thc "::11t\l"(:
record reveals that P1l1011
testij-ied that his boss ,IL'PMe \V .lIt
fa r ~e. hear ll)j
0) Ct 1t '-'pun rC'LC'lpt
o f 1r>, So 0<0'c[ S Iof]
Pillion \' 99 Lynll
Index No. OX-2379R
2000 II SHe Plaza
Rochc:;t~L NL'w York 14604
BUll tARO CiREEN,I,SO
Attorncy i'or Second Third-Party
11 Iv1clrolcch Center. 28[11 FloOl'
13moklyn. New York