Pinon v 99 Lynn Ave LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Pinon v 99 Lynn Ave LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 30958(U) April 2, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 08-23798 Judge: Daniel 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] ,,,~":R~?r '\.;V INDEX No. 08-23 798 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS. PART 9 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hall. DANIEL M. MARTIN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE 8-31-10(#0101 MOTION DATE 12-30-10 (11012) MOTION DATE 5-17-11 (#1113) MOTION DATE 6-7-11 (11014,#015, liOl6) MOTION DATE 6-2g-1 1(#017. #OIB) MOTION DATE 8-15-11 (#019) ADJ. DATE 10-11-11 Mot.Seq.#OIO~MD #014-MotD #OI7-MG #OI2-MotD #OI5-MG #Ol8-MD #OI3-MotD #016·MotD #OI9-MG ---------------------------------------------------------------X M1GUEL PINON and PATRICIA PINON, BOYD LA W OFFICE, P.c. Attorney Plaintiffs, for Plaintiffs 626 Rexcorp Plaza West Tower, 6th Floor Uniondale, New York 11556 - against - 99 LYNN AVE LLC, 105 LYNN AVE LLC, B CO. LLC, ALFRED CAIOLA, BEN AILOA III and ROSE CAIOLA, as Tenants in Common. ALFRED CAIOLA, PAUL MICHAEL CONTRACTING CORP., GEORGE E. VICKERS JR. ENTERPRISES, INC, NICHOLAS A . VERO, ARCHITECT, PC., CARDO SITE DEVELOPMENT INC and LAND USE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC, & L MANAGEMFNT Defendants. WEG & MYERS, P.C Attorney for Defendants/Second Third-Party Plaintiffs 99 Lynn, 105 Lynn. B & L Management and Caiola 52 Duane Street New York, New York 10007 CASCONE & KLLJEPFEL, LLP Attorney for Defendant Paul Michael Contracting 1399 Franklin Avenuc, Suite 302 Gardcn City, New York 1[530 --------------------------------------------------------------X GEORGE E VICKERS JR. ENTERPRISES, INC Third-Party Plallltitl - against - MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, -1'llird-l)arty Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------x LITCHFIELD & CA VO Attorney for Defcndant/Tlmd-Party PlainlilT George 1::.Vickers Jr. Ent. 420 Lexington A venue, Suite 2104 New York. New York 10170 KELL Y & HULME, P.c. Atto1l1ey for Defendant Vera 323 Mill Road Westhampton Beach, New York 1] 978 [* 2] --------------------------------------------------------------)( 99 LYNN AVE LLC and 105 LYNN AVE LtC. Second "rhlrd-Pi.lrty P!aintifls. - against MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and L1:XINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY. Second Third-Party Dcfendanb. ---------------------------------------------------------------.)( UPOti lill" following pClp<..:r~11l1Il1b..:n:d I to 24l) I"c;ad <HI tll..:s..: 1ll0tlUIb (Gr- ~Lll1llll;lrV jlld(~IlI~'l1t ,11l1! III ~<:V<:I' ;1l:11(l11: Nutl":c' 1I( IvjutiUI\! ()rdn tu Show Causo: <lnd supporting papers I - It) . .12 - 50, 79 - [O!). j 15 - j 30. J J I - 1-12. 15 ¢ ¢ - [ill. IiJlJ - 211-1.21:: -: nx. n.1 - 2-15: Notie.: or Cross Molion alltl ~Llpportingpapers __ ; i\nswo:ring Aflidavils and supporting pa]KTS 21 - 27. J(j - JJ.: 53 - n. 107 - JOX. 143 - 153. 154 - 155. J77 - IX2. IX:>- 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<ltion: and it i:- further ORDERED that the lllotion (if- 0 I0) by the second third-palty defendant l.exington Insurancl' <. 'ompallY (Le.\inglOll) lor an order pw-suam fa CPLR 3112 granting summary judgment and a declara1 lOll Lh:l1il is 110!obligated to defend or indemnify thl: sl:cond tlmel-pany pla1l111lTstJl) Lynn Avcnuc I.LC and IOS Lynn Avcnuc LLC III the plaintiffs' underlying ,lction for personal InJurics herein, IS denied: and It is further ORDERED thaI thL: 1l1()1'iOIl 012) by the dcfell(i;,)nts/st'cond (# third-p,llty phllll(ilh ()9 Lynn /\velille LLC (9\) Lynll) ,llld j OS Lynll !\ V81lUCLLC (105 Lynn) (or all order pursuant h) CPLR J212 g:r~Il1Lln~ ."ullllllary judgll1ent and;l deelara(ion thatl.exlllgton IS obllg.iltcd 10 ddend thCI11ill tile pl<LJIltdls' 1I11lkrlying action fix personal injuries, to indemnify them I'or any judgmcill clllcrcd agalll:-;t thelll in thl' undcrlying anion, and to rCllnburse tht.:m for all atlurI1ey's fee." incmrcd to date in ddcl1ding the underlying ac\lol1. is granted to the extent that 99 Lynn and 105 Lynn are t.:ntitled to sUlllmary juc!gllll'nt and a dt.:daration that LexlIlgton is obligated to defend thelll. and scheduling a hearing, as ."el ti.)nh below. to detcrmine till' amount orany reimbursement owed to them. and is otherwise denied; and II I." further ONDERI'D thai the motion (If 013) by Lexington fl.)r an order pursuant t\l CPLR 3212 grantlll),.' Slllll111aryjudgnlent and a declaration that the second third-pal1y defendan1 Merclwl1t." Mutual InsurancC' Company (Merchants), is obligated to defend and indemnify 99 Lynn and IOS Lynn in rhe pbilHirrsunderlying action for personal injUries on a primary has is. is gralllcd to the e.\tent thai it is elltlllcd 10 SUllllmrv..)Udi!Jl1elll and a dcclaration that Merchant is oblii!ated 10 dc1cnd 9l) Lvnn and 10) Lvnn in the ~ ~.' ~ underlYing actlOl!. and schedul ing a hearing, as se1 forth below, 10 ddermmc the amoullt or any rl'il11hurSl'l11l'llt O\vl'd 10 them, ,md I~ ()th('nvi~e dcni\:d; alld il I~ further [* 3] Pinon v 99 I.ynnl\venue [ndex Nu. OX-2379~ LLC Page .3 ORDERED !hat the motIon (if 014) by the dclcndanUthlrd-party plainti [TGcorge E. Vickers .Ir. 1:11Icrpriscs. Inc. (Vickers) for an order pursuant 10 CPLR 3212 granting summary judgmcIll and a d(;c1aration th,lt Mcrcll<lnts is obligated to detcnd it in the plaintiffs· underlying aClion for persoml injurlcs, ,\!ld to illdcllInil·y it for any judgment entered against it in the underlying actioll, is granted W ihe c.\\cnt that it IS I;Tllit'lcd to sUlllmary .judgment and a dcclaratlOll that Ml:rl:hant IS obll~,lll:d to dc/elld I[ in Ihe underlying aetioll, and scheduling a heanng. as set lorth below. to dctenlllllc the alllOLlI1lof allY rCllllbursclllclll owed to it, and 15othclwise denied: and it is further - ORDERED that the Illation (# UIS) by the defendant/tlmd-party plalntilTVickl.Ts telr an onkr pursuant to CPLR 3112 granting summary Judgment dlsmissmg the complaint and all cross claims againsl it is grant<..'c1: nd il is further a ORDERED Ihar the molion (# (16) by thc second third-party ddcndant Merchants for an order plirSlI:llll tn CPLR 3211 granling suml1lnry judgmclll <lnd a declaration thai Merchants is nut obligated t() t1dcnd ur imktlllll1'y 9Y Lynn or 105 I"ynn in the underlying action as they do nut qualily ;1."additional inslII"cds under the Merchants Il1surance policy With ih namcd insun::d. t1Wl'Merch~II1I." i" 110[oblig~l\cd io dt::Jcnd or indclllnity Vickers III the L1ndcrlYlllg action as it dol'S not qualify as an addlli(lIlailllsured llildcr Ihe iVlerchalHs illsuranel' pollcy with Its named lllsured, and that iVlel'cl1ants IS not oblig~HeJ to reImburse ()q [.ynn. IOS Lynn or Vickers for the costs II1clIITcd to date In defending the undcrlYll1g aClinn. is granted tn the extem that fVkrclJants is cmitled to summary Judgment and a declaration that it is nOl obligalcd to indemnify 99 Lynn, 105 Lynn or Vickers in the underlying action. and is otherwisc dl.'llied: and it is furthn ORDERED Ihat the motion (# 017) by the defendant Paul Michael Contracting COlT'. (PMC) lilt"an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgmcnt dismissing the eomplaint and all cro:;s chllms against it is granled: and it is fUI1hcr ORDERED t'hat the motion (# 0 Ig) by the second tlmd-party defendant Lexingtoll I·or an urt!cr pUro;[Wlltto CPLR (lU.) sevenng thc s~cond thlrd-p<'lrly action from the main action is dCIlI(:d IVlth leave In Il'lakl::a funlltT ,\pplleatloll seeking a separate tried with a scpara[e Jury, prior to tilt:: t1"l<11I' the other aClIOI1.". 0 m dctenllinc Lningtol1's obligations 10 defend and indemnify its insureds upon the l:olllpklioll u!" discovcry and tiling ot"lhe notc at" issue herein: and it is further ORDER}:·/) tbat the mol ion (If 019) by the dcrcildam Cardo Site Developmenl Inc. (Cardo) l{)r an order pursualll to CP L R 3111 gram ing summary j udgrnelll dism issing the cOlllpl alllt and all cross I.:!;I IIn:against il is granted. This is an aClion for personal injuries allegedly sustained all .Iun!: 26. 2005. when Ihe plallltifT Mig.uL'1Pinon (Pll1\ll1) dove mtn Shinnecock Bay 11'0111 bulkhead locatcd 111 a the rC~lroi"prL:mises 10«11L:d ,II 99 Lynn AVl'nlic ,)r IOS Lynn Avenue, Hampton Bays, New York. The properties i\rc (lwiled by \1](:11' rl'spcl'!\Vl' Ilalllcs;lkcs. the defendants 91) Ly'nn and IOS Lynn, which lwd clltercJ into scp<lr;ltc conlr<leh wltl1 [he dckndant/thlnl-party plallllillVickcrs, acting as general contractor. for the COllstruct\ol1 nfll":\\! hOlllL"S Ihel r proper! les. I Vi ckers had entered ill [0 subconlractor agrecmcn Is ",vith Pf'vlC. P1110n's {lil 1 Tlk' deklllbnls Alfred (·;lil)1;I. Ben Cainl;l III. and Rose ('aiol;!. a~ T ¢ ¢ 'J);lIlIS in ("Olllll1\ll1. and .·\11'1'..:<1 1.';I111!;l arc ..:ilher pnor 0\\ Itel'S of Illl' subject prop..:nies. tllemhers 111'111 LLC s which \)WJ) lh ¢ ¢ PI'0PCl1i..:s. llr l'ltl!l!. The ¢ ¢ , ' [* 4] Pinon v 99 Lynn Avenue LLC IIlCk, Nll. ()g-2J79S P,lge -4 employer, to perf()nn masonry \vark on the projects. The subcontractor agn:cTT1Ct1ts ITL[ulred PMC tu obtulll Ilisurance POlJCICScovel"lng its work on the projects, and to name the owners of the pmpcrtlcs ~lI1d Vickers as additiondlillsurcds In sc\ld policies. The dcfendant Cardo \vas responsible tin sill' work Oil tile pn)jCels. II appl.:ars th,ll the defendant Nicholas A. Vero, .Archltect', P.c., perl"ormcd ~m:lllleciLiral services I-i.)\" proJects, and thm the defendant Land Use Ecologli:al Services, Jnc. (Llild Use) W,IS I"ct;]inec! III thl'clllliledion with the development and constructIon orthe subjeci bulkhead.:' It is ulldisputed that, aner working as a mason's helper 011the morning of hiS aCCIdent, Pinon ,ltC IllS IUllch and thl.:n decided to "cool olr by taking a swim III the bay located approxlIlwtely IO() fcl'-I bclllnd till' area III which he was worklllg. Plilon dove Into the bay, struck his head on the sandy bottom, ~lnd sul'i"cl"Cd senous In.Junes. The plaintiffs coml1lellcl'-d this acl10ll agalllsl' the defendants cilleging, ;11110Ilg other tlllllg:-;. [hat the pl"elmses \Vere dangerous and dcfective II1that the waters III the b;\y behind the prel11lSeS apPc\I\:d deeper than they wen:, that they f~llJed to provide \\/,w1Ings and sIgns that lllc!Jeatcc! the \Vater depth or tile danger III dlVlllg Into the bay, that thc.y t~lIled (0 supervise Plllon, that the area adjOllllng the bull\hc(ld \\';1." llot propedy graded ur maintall1ed, and that the).! failed to provide barriers to prevellt accl',SS to the b,1Y,lll- 1(1 properl y fence (he pel"lll1etcr ()r the construction site_ V Iekers t1"l cOiTlmenccd (l th Ird-p,1 rty (lCIIOil ;J g~1 ell iI\SI IVlcrl"!Wn1S, MC's Insurer, seeklllg a declaration that Merchant is obllgated 10 defcnd alld Illdclllllll"y II III P Pinon's action ()I.) Lynn and 105 Lynn (collectively Lynn) commenced a second tlmd-party ,Iction ag.III]S! Merchant ,met l.c:\lllgton, thell" lllsurer, seekll1g a declaration that Merchant ~llld Lexington arc ohligatcd to defend and indell1l1l!'y them III Pl110n's actioll.; LC;\lllgton now moves (# 01 OJ for an order grantmg summary judgment declaring thai it has nu dUly !o defend or indenmit'y Lynn 111 the Pll10n action. The proponent of a summary .ludgmcnt Illotion IllUSt make a prlln;1 I~lcle shO\vlllg of entitlement to judgment as ,1 matter of law, tendering sufliciclH eVlclcllCl' 11) clJlllinate ,lllY ll1at'cnallssue of I~lct (see A/wlrez I-'Pro.\pec/ Hospi/al. hX NY2d 320, SUR N\'S2d lJ1J 19i\()J; Willcgrad I' New Yorl. VIIiI'. Med. Or., 64 N Ylei XSI, 487 N YS2d J I(1II9KS J)- The burdcn thcll ",hitis to tJw party opposing the motIOn \vhich must produce evidentiary proor in admissible lorm sul'flclel11 to require a iI·ial oCthe materiallssucs of 1'~lCt (Rebecc/li.' JFlti/more, 172 AD2d (JOO. 5()X NVS2d 423 r2d Depl 19() I J; /lotlt .' Barreto. 2XlJ AD2d 557, 735 NYS2d 197[2d Dcpt 2001]' O'Neill.· Fishkill_ 134 AU2d .:1-;';7,521 NYS2d 27212d Depl I08Tj). Furthermore, the parnes' COl'llpctlllg 1111ere::;1 must he VIl'WCLI '"In a light most blvorable to the party 0ppOSlllg rhe motIon" (Marille /v!id!lIllll BallI\, N.A. I' Dino & Artie \"Autolllatic Transmission Co., I()S /\D2d 610,563 NYS2d 44() [2d Dep1' I t)()Oj). r In support 01' its motion, Le'\ll1gton submits, among ()thc.r things, thl' second Cilinl-I),lrty plc'ldlll!.':S. ,klClldalll ll&J ivl:ll1agcmcnl <If :111 (,['[ill." iI1di\'idu:d Ctl_ I I.e. is:I I·Cbll.'d 11wllagcl1l8nl 8olll(laIlY, ddendanh_ Th(' IlIoti,ms dc'1C11(1:lI1ls lddl\'SS ~1Il;'.' ~ issll<:s Ihalllllgin c Tile.: [(lul"1 11ol('S(11:11isc()\;cry d which [H.'nein are I~ul dll-,:<.:tl."dagalllst n.'I~lll.' 10 their jl()1eIlII:llll~lhllilY [ws nUl h<.:cllcompletcd it ~1I'P8~II'S [1Ii1.V (\\\'lIt~d hy."IIllL' h8 th8S(' tkl\:lld;lIlI~. 11"1'dtlllh.:S<: III Lilis ~I~'(ltlil 111 Ih,:~<.:'h.:IIOlb, ,lllti (11,11el~ltls 1-~,,~:ll'<ling d llic II1Vt\I"<:lllClll ,)1".'i'11111.' 1'<lrllcs 1111111,'i IIlCld"Jlt [~I1<\1y<.:l<.:I<':<lr. ; I:ssc:\ IllSllr~lll(1.' COIllP~IIIY (l.ssc:\). -II)Y)I) scd~il1g a ,b~I:ll'<Ili()n :!.()_ 2011, this COliri dek'rmillcd 13y onlnLi,llcd i\pr'il ;1 delcrmill,llioll of I',~~e\'s duty to indemnify uf I'Ml Vid;(r's [l1al it W:lS not ohligaled . ~[~\vcll as the ITSlllllli()1l ofOlilcr illSUrl.'I·. l·Ollllll<:ll<.:cd;l to ddclI(l or il1dcnlliil~v Itl,Il!-:sS('X was ohllg;lIed t1]()~Ccnlities i%LH';~()1'1:lel IllUSt awail Sl.'I'~lr·<lIC ~Illi,)n 11111ic.'r Illlk, Vid;crs or Lynn i[lll1" (0 dekml Viekc'l's ;1I1d IYilil. ,I fil1ding ;IS III I'inon No_ 11;\_ l'illOl1 :ldiul1 :111,111];11 s ~I,ltll~ :1.';:111 "IllI,lu)'l'C [* 5] Pinon v 99 Lynn A venue LLC Index No. 08-2379X Page .5 (opies of the policies thai it issued to 99 Lynn and 105 Lynn. copies of Pinon' s J karing Before tlll' Workers' CompensallOn Board. State orNew York held on November 1. 2005. and Ihe Melllurandulllll!" Boaru and Decision of the Legal Appeals Unit oftbc New York Workers' Compensatioll Board ("'Ihe Hoard") liled Apnl 17. 1006, wbidl found that Pinon was injured while 011a lunch hrc'lk. was not aCling in the course of hIS dutIes as a hlborcr at Ihe lime he was injured, and denied his claim lor workers· compensation bcnelils. or about September 27, 2004, Lexmgton issued a homeowners poliCY to 99 Lynn. bearing [lOlll'Y llulllber r.F 0578069 02. effective September 8. 2004 to September S. 2005 (\)l) Lynn policy). On or ~Ji1()llt OclObcl' h. 2004. Lexington issued a homeowners policy t'{) IOS Lynn. bearing plllicy llul11ber Ll: ()5X 14~7 el'li..:ctlve October X. 2004 to October g, 200.') (]05 I.ynn policy). The sub.lcct l10111-:owner- llircies ,Ir'l' p Identical except for thclr clTectivc dares (collectIVely Lexington policies). 011 m. Thc Lexington policies provide. in an added endor:-;emcnl Form LEX (){J (Jo {j I 0 l' BUILDER'S RISK LIABILITY COVERAGI, (Residence Premises Only) SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGES This insurance applJes only to "'bodily injUlY" or "property damag:l'" arislllg oul of the ownership, ma 1I1tenance or use of the "residence premises" shown 1lllhc Declarallons oftbis policy. Tile iollowing Covcmgc i:-;added: E - Personal Lwbillt)-' docs not ,Ipply to: (a) "bodily injury" ur "property damage" artSing out ol'tl1c "operations" performed lor the "insured" by Indepcnckllt COlllr'<lcll)rS or acts or olllisslon:-> 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 bodily injury. 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 ,Ill 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<J!he \Vas 011hiS IUllch hrcak at the llille llt"t!lis ,In'Jelcll!. [* 6] PIllOIl V ')0 Lynn A venue LLC Index No. 08-237iJ8 Page () Here, Lynll argues that the language excluding coveragc 111 this sitll<.lilon IS :lmhi);,uous bel'~ILlSl';) wry could I·casonahly iilld tl1<ltPinon was injured while acting OU1SlCil' scope ul"lw; l:rnplnymellt :\1\(1. the thus, W~IS l1ut all (;ll1ploycc or PMC at the timc of hiS accident. While it IS trLH:that the courts have upheld Workers' CompcnsatlOll Board lindings that lunchtllnc injul'lcs metj be deemed tu occur outside the S['dllL' of cmpluymcilt excep1 under Iiml!cd circumstances (scc Huggins )' i'v/asterc/oss il-hfW)/IIJ"- S3 i\D.1d 134~. 921 NYS2d 722 l3d Dept 2()11'1~Smith v Ci(r ofRoc/iester, 2SS AD2d g6:1,()g I NYS2d 371 13d Depl 1995 J ~ Beu//ersoll I' Checher Garage Sen'. Corp., S4 AD2d 1042, JXX NYS2d .174 [3d Dept I')7(, I), sll(il dderllllilations arc llO! bll1dillg In it li<lbility suit upon those \vho wen: not parties to the cOI1I]1ens:ltlull ]1mCl'cdlllgs (Liss \I Trall.\· Auto S)s., IIIC., 68 NY2d 15, 505 NYS2d X3 1 [1 L)S6)~MallllOIl I' East 84tll .·lpt. COIl}., h7 AD3d 5M), XX9 NYS2d S()3 [1 st Dep1200L)], Lutheran Med. Ctr, I' Here/ord IllS, Co., 4.1 A])Jd I ()(J4. x42 NYS2d 4l)S [2e1Dept lOOT]). In thiS case, it is clear that thc ilJl(1JllgS urlhe l~u:II'd WIIIIl()l 11ccessardy be hinding upon the defendants in the PlI10n action who <.lidnot partiCipate In the Hoard he<lr111g, r thcir insurers. However, given the deternlllUltlons orthe Board, thiS Court elll reasonably o cOl1cluck that there IS all 3lnblguity as to the language 111 the 111surance contract I,vhicl1ls the suhJcct o(t'l1L' within actIOn, There IS llO dctillltJon of the word "cmployee" Wlthm the Lexlllgton policH.~sand then: C.\IStS allothcr POSSI Ie inteq1retatlOn of lhe clause \vh Ich cxc Iudes the "emp Ioyecs" 0 f the subcontrac tor, i. c. th:ll b a worker ,lCtm!;; outside the scope of his employment IS not all "employee" Within the tlleal1lng ol'the exeluslon. Therefore, LeXington has Il\lJed to demonstrate that it has no duty to defend ,llll"!indelll1liry Its insureds as a matler of law. Accordingly, Lexington's Illotlon for all order granting summary judgment duty to defend or lIldellllllfy Lynn in the Pinon action is delllcd. declaring tlwt it 11,\S no Lynn now moves (# (12) 1"01· order granting slIl1llllaryjudgment an decldrlng thaI Le\lllgton is ubligated tu defend and indellll1lty thcm III the Plilon action, and to rClmbursc thelll ('Jr till' attorncy/'s iCes 111l'lIlTed d~lte ill ddcndlllg the lI11derlYlllg ~Iction. In support uflhelr mot lOll. Lynn submits. illlWl\g ut!lu' to things, copie'; orthe Lexington policies, the plaintiffs' complaint, and the transcript ofPlnon·s depositll)11 testimony. LYllll ~11'gUl'S that the determination or the WorkcTs' Compensation Board establlsl1CS tll,ll Pill()11 \vas Ilut all cmployee of PMC at the rime orhls accident, that the sub.J(xt endorsemellt docs Ilole\elude covel'age hert?lll, and 111,ltLexington IS obligated to defend and Indemnity them in the Pinon ,1Cliull under the terms ortile 110meO\Vncr policies Issued to them by Lexingtoll. For lhe reasons cited <lbuvc, Lynn-s CUI\tclltinl1 tll;\ltile Board's determination is bllldlllg on Lexington is witiloullllerit (Sf'!' USS I' TrailS ...I/fo I ,~~FS., /Ile., .1"11/)1·(1, /"'falmoll l' East 84th /lpt. Corp., SIIj)ru; Lutheran Med. Cfr. 11 Hereford Ins. Co" .1"/1/11"11). However, a review ol'the record reveals that Pinoll, ill hiS cOlllpbint, does not clllcgc Ih,lt hl~ ,vas .\n cmployee of PMC ~l(the lIllle of his accident, and hiS deposition testimony COl1lPorts \VIti, hlS testlllHlll.\" he fore the Workers' Compensation Board. illS well settled that an lllsurer's duty to defend IS broader than Its duly t() lIldellJnltj'. sllch th~11 ;111 II]Slll'er l1lay he obllg~lted 1'0defend its Illsured even II: ilt the concllisionllfalllll1(h:Tlyin~; actlOIl. it IS f(Jund It) have Illl nhllgatlol1 to illlJemllllj' Its insured (see Automobile Ins. Co. of"[-Iar(/ord I' COO/i. 7 N\{3d 131. ,'\I:-;NYS2d I 7() 12()()() I: Global Coustr. CO. I' Essex IllS. Co., 52 AD3d h5\ ~6() N \'S2d h 14 [2d I>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 Ci~v 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 [1997]). FUI·thcI', "an insured should not be denied all Inltl~ll recours ¢..10 ~l ' [* 7] Pillon v 99 Lynn /.l.,. VClHa:LLC Inde:\ 1\10. OK-1J79S Page 7 clrrier merely because another calTicr may also be responsIble" C011'" SO NY2d (AU, 655, 593 NYS2d 9()6 [1993]). (Continental Cas. CO. I~' t/pid-Amcrimll R I-kn:, the laur corners of the complaint 111 Pinon action potentiully give rise tn <ll:nvcn.::d C1<tllll the ~lg~llnsl Lynn A.Jury could reasonably find that Pinon \\'(lS not an clnpluyee oj'PMC ~llthc tlmc Urllis accidcnt, and thaI hIs IIlJunes were due to a tililure by 99 L)-fnn or IUS Lynn to keep their pn:l11ises 111 cl reasonably S(lfe conditioll, ur due to neghgence in the ownership, control, or 1ll,1I11teIlUllCe urtl1elr prl1PCI'!Y or thott LY'IHIwas negligent III S0111eother manner not excluded by the LexlIlgtol1 pollc](:s. /\Ilhough LC.\lngtlln contends that It owes no duty to 105 Lynn bceause thc plaintllfs allege thatlhe :lccldcnt uccurll...·d at 99 Lynn. :I I'l;':VICW orthe entire rccord reveals th,lt Pinon has not clcarly Identified the plm.'C:of hIS '\l.xIdcnr, that the pl,lIntiffs' bills ol'particular note 90-105 Lynn AVl':l1ue, Hampton Bays, Ne\v 'y'urK ~ISthe site uChis ,Iccldcnt, and that (!Jscovery has not yet been completed III this action. Acumll11giy, that hr,lncli of thl' motion whIch seeks a declaration that LexlIlgton is obhgated to dcfend 99 Lynn ,me! 1()~ Lynn IS ~r<lnted. The "econd branch of Lynn's Illation "eeks a declaration that LC.\ll1gtOI1is oblig;ltcd lU indcI11l1l1)' them for any sc:tllement or judgment In tbe Pll10n acllOI1. Here, Lynn has f·~\ilcdto cstablish thclr entitlement to summary Judgmcnt. [n effect, Lynn seeks to Ignore the ambiguity In the subject endorsement within thc Lexlllgton pollclcs. There is a qucstion oft~lCt whether Pmon\; injuncs occurred 'Nithin the scopc orbis employment so as to clearly Identity hun a" an cmployec ofPMC Thll", reg,millig Lynll's request liJr a declaratIon that Lexington must indemnify them and undcr thcse ClrUJmstallces. it cannot be determined whether they al·e entitled to indemniJ'[catioll until a deterillinatwn as to Pmon':; slatus is made herein because the subject cndorsement in the polley spcClfically prOVides that covcrage I" nut ;\v~lIlable "to ;ll1YlJ1dependent contractor or to any cmployee of such contraClur." Aecurdlllgly, the SCUlII,1 branch of Lynn's motion for sUl1lnwr}' judgment is denied. The tlmd hranch ofLynn's motion seeks a declaration that Lcxington is obligated 10 relmhurse thelll for all ~1110rney's fecs Incurred to datc 111 dctending the PalOll actlOl!. In light ortlle COllrt'S deCISion th~lt 99 Lynn and 105 Lynn arc and WCI'Centitled to be dctclllkd by Lcxlngton, they are clltitk'd to reimbursement orthe amounts expended by them in defending the Pinon action. Aceordlllgly,. Lynn·s 1110tlon far summary Judgment IS gr:ll1tcd tu tIll· c:\1'\:llt til<lt\)\) LYI1Il:11)dI(I) I_Ylll1 elltitlcd to summary Judgmcnt and a declaration that Lc.\ingtoll ISobllg~llcd [0 ddl:lld thel11. ~llj(l ;lre scheduling a Ilc,JrIng, as set forth helow, to deterl1'lllle thc amount 01':111)'rcirnhurscJl1clll' mvcd tlltilcl11. The COLIrt\\Illlnc.\t address the three motions tlJr SUl1l1ll~lryudgment (# () 15, fI () 17, und tt () It) ) J which seck to dismiss the plal1ltiffs' complaint, as this will help determinc many ofthc issues In the relll;] inll1g Illotions. V IeKers moves (#- 0 I 5) for an order grantll1g SUlllmary J udgmcilt d 1:--: ss ing thc 1111 COl11pl~lint n the grounds that Pinon's il1Jul"lesdid llot al"lse iI'ol11hiS employmcnt, th:lt it did IlOt ()\'ve:1 dilly o t(1 Plllon, and tlwt111S dIve into shallow water was thc sole proximate cause of his InJlIl'lCs. In :--:lIppon()I·lh 1110tlon, Vlckt:rs submits the dcpositIon transcript of Pinon's testllllony 1';,lkell011Octuber l:'i. 1() I O. At hiS depOSition, Pinon tesldlcd that he was cmploycd by PMC a:--: laborer. and that hc \VOrkl'd :11 a the LynJ1 Avenuc site Il)t appro:\lInatcly two years before his accHknt. ! Ie inc!ie;ltcd th~l1,dUl"lllg tllattlllll' period, he \V~l:--: 10 do whatever he wislHxi during hiS luncil breaks, and that he and hiS cO\vll!'kcrs had frce cng,lgcd In ~Ictivitics sueh as playing soccer on tile sIte. On the day of IllS accident. he and twn or IIis [* 8] Pinon \' ')9 Lynn Avenue Index No_ 08-2J7,)H L1,C Page X coworkers, Luis and Juan. ate their lunch quickly, and he decided to take a SWIl1lill llIe bay to cool oil I II.: had never SCl'-nanyone swimming in the bay. However. Juan had told hUll that Ile had gUile sWltllmlllg III lhe bay the previous summer. Pinon stated that he did no! thll1k it would be "trouble" ifllc went swil1lll1ill~ because orthe activities the workers had engaged in on their lunch breaks before that day, He walked to the edge or1l1e level ground of the propel1Y. through all open area in a line which included a low IYlll~ knce and hay bales, and proceeded down a hill to the beach nrea by the bay. lie reached a "wall'" or bulkhead. and dove head first l11tothe waters of the bay, with his hands at his side. Pinon further tcsLllied that ile did not attempt to learn the depth oftlle water, lhat he assumed the wat('r was deep because he l"()lild Ilul :-leethe sandy bottom, and that he had never seen anyone dive into the hay Lx:l()rc. He staled that tlll..'I"c \veri.: IlO signs posted inthc areu, that the water W<lS Sl.\ Ih.::r helow the top oi"(h(; bulklll.:'\lllhal day. and lh~i1 he was ramilinr with tile (;OlH':Cptof ocean tides. He acknowlcdgcclthat he h~ld Icsl'ilkd trllthi'ully ,md ,lcclll'ately at a workers' compensation hearing, and lhallhc Board had determined tI1:11 was 110tII1.1u1cd hc ill the Cl)urse of hIS employment. Here VickI'S has estahlished that Pinon was the sole prOXllll<ltCc<luse or his llljuries. It has been lh.-Id that summary Judgment IS appropriate, <·notwithstanding that a defendant's l'legligenl'C might ha\'c becn a causatIve f~lctor In the accident where the reckless conduct of the plallltilYeollstilllled an lInl"on.:,sel'able slIpcrsedmg even\. sunicient to break the causal cham and thus labsolvin~1 the ddendam of liability"' (Kri;. I' Sehul1l. 75 NY.~d 15. 550 NYS2d 584 [llJ89/: set' also Bolfax I! Joy Day Call/p. 67 NY2d 617, -J.9lJ NYS2d 660 1.1 986}: I)erdiadall v Felix Conti·. Corp.. 51 NY2d. 434 NYS2J \(J6 [19)\01). !\ headfirst dive imo water without first detcrminmg its depth is clearly reckless COlH.ILIl':llll circumstances, such as those prcscnt here, where the claimant was aware that natura! waier levels t1uctu<ttc (set.' Olsell I' (~fRie/~field.81 NY2d 1024,599 NYS2d 912 [19931; UO/larolls II. General Elec Co., 115 AD2J ~51, 626 NYS2d 311 r3d Dcpt 1995] {(lid 86 NY2d 832, 634 NYS2d 436 [J 995J: Butler I' Marshall, 2.. j L /\D2d 971. 663 NYS2d 381 [3d Dept 1997J; Mortis v Dittl. 275 AD2d ')40. 715 NYS2d 132 [41h Dcpt 2()OOj, cj."Walter I' Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 193 /\J)2d 1005,598 NYS2d 41 () [4th Dept 1(Nlj). TOIl'/l Pil]()Il'S testllllony ,It his exal1llnation before tnal in which he :-;tatcs he dId not klhlW the depth oCthe \V:ller ill lile hay, th;lt he did ]lot atte!11pt (0 karn ofiiS depth, ,llld that he dove he(ldl'lr~l Wllh [liS [lands at his silk Indic<.ltt:ssLifficlI.:-ntsupporll'()r Lilt:granting of Vicker's mOtion. Till' plaintiffs have railed Lo raise a question of" 1~ICln Opposiljoll 10 Vicker's IllotWIl. or to ncgatl' i till' clliltentioll that Pinon was lhe sole proximate cause of hiS injurlcs_ In uppositioll III the Illotinn, Ihc plainti Irs adopt Pinon's testimony, and they submit the aftirmation of their attorney :lnd tllc alfid,mt {Ir all e.'\perl Wllncs:>.~ In hiS affirmatioll, counscl for the plaintifb contends that the l11ultiple motions for summary JlId~ment made hcrein arc prcmature as dIscovery has not been completed. lie a"scrls that thc plaintiffs' expert has established the need to proceed with discovery to IcJrn ol"the ~ll'liollS takcll by the ddendants to make the work site safe. which detendant would have had thc responsihllity 10 post signs \)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 ¢.... L'xpert·s affida\·it 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<lteriall:lClS !lOl supported hy .] The ("(lur! n(ltl'~ Ih~11 Ihe plililltllr~ have ~\Ibl1lil1<..:d lle ~el or ()PPO~ili(lll p<1p<.-'rs Ihis llwti'1I1 \\'llI(h o In iIHli~':'I1: i~ illlent1cd to ~crve..: l~'.lPI\,)~iti()11I() tll<: lhre..:e..: ~ lll()li()ll~ 1\,1' ~llllllll<lry jlld~'.IIll'1I1 wl,ieh ~c:ck Illcy 1,)disl1li~~ Illelr eOIllI,I;IIIl1. i\.~ ~lI(h. 1he..: COIII·t IHI,~ e..:()ll,~I(kl"l:cI s~lid OPI)l)~ilii\ll illl'<cg<ll-dto <.'~Ic.:11 (l1'the ~(I11Y':I.',IIll<llil1ll~. [* 9] PInon v l)l) LY'lln A venue LLC Index No. ()~-n79k Page l) the evidence, and may not guess oj' speculate III drawing a conclusion" (see Shi Pei Faug Ji fJ('ug S(lfIg Rca/zl' Corp., JS ADJd 510, S~5 NYS2d 1<)4 [2d Dcpt 2007]). "Speculatloll, grounded In thcory ratiln than I'<ll't,is Illsuflicicllt to dcfe,ll' iI motion for SUlJlIlwry JudgmcnC {st'L' Zuckerman v Ci~J! orNeII' rork \'UjJm; Leggis v Gearhart, 294 AD2d 543, 743 NYS2d 135 j"2d Dept ]()(j2); Levitt I' COIl/1ZJ! ()rSI~/l()/J,:, 145 AD2d4l4. 535 NYS2d 618 [2d Dept 108S]). The plalntift's' ex pen cites codes \Vllll:ll are 110trelevdll! tu tillS nwtlcr, and he cites his opinion 011construcllon practices III a cOllclusllr)' ll1unller. Such cunslnll'llllli pral'tices, even II' haVIng some relevance, do no! address thc issue of Pinon's <te\'lons III dIVIng inl0 !llC b;I)". The plallltilTs' expert (\Iso opliles that sIgns should h,lve be ell posted in the area \varning agdlllst SWII11l11111i' lll'diving. However, the expert t~liled to cite any regulatIOn or standard in support or this contentlOIl. TIlliS, the aflldavit lacks probative valul;; and IS 1l1Sufticlenl to raise an ISSUCor Llct (see David \' County oj" Sullo/k, 1 NYJd 525, 775 NYS2d 229 1.2003]; Joffe I' Hampshire House Apt. Corp., ~ I ;\DJd 93(j, :\(J() NYS2d 757l2d Dept 20()Sl; Rocl!lord l' Ci~J!(~lYonkers, 12 AD3d 433, 7S(J NYS2d 5~5 [2d Dept 2(J()'+I) Accordmgly_ Vlckcr's motIon h1r summary Judgment CbllTIS .lg'lln:,;t it arc (lIS1111s;:;ed. IS granted and the complaillt ,llld all cross PMC moves W Oj7) for an order gwnting summary Judgmcnt (/islllisSlllg the cOl1lpbint lln 11ll' grounds Ilwt Pinon's inJuries did not ansc Ii-om his cillploymenl, that It did nol owe a duty 10 Pinon. ,1IJ(j ill,l! hIS dive intn shalknv watel' was the sole proximate C,lUSC hI,'; mwnes. Till' lHgUIllCI1(S of ;1l1d contentions mmIc by P.rvIC mirror or expand upon those set forth Il1the Vicker's ITlotlon. III addltioll, ,IS set forth abovc, the platntiffs' opposition is cont,uned 11lone subnllssioll which they Indicate IS address<.'d to ihe th['Cl~subJcct motions. Therefore, the Issues herein, as 'Nell as the phunti Irs Opposition papers, arc Idenlicalto those involved in determilllJ1g the Vickers 1110t1On For the rcasons set rortll elbow, the COLIn limls til;]! Pinon was ihc sole proximatc cauSe of his Injuries. Accordingly, PrvlCs mO!lon 1'(JrsUillmary Judgment l·laims agalll~:t it al'e dIsmissed. IS granted and the cOlllpl,llllt ,llld all crns~ Cal'do IllllVl'S (if () 10) 1:;.)1' ol-der granting summary Judgment dismIssing the cOlllpi<llnt \)11the ,Ill gJ\lunds that' l)lllon 's lIlJunes dl(1 not anse from hiS employment, that it did 110tovve ,I duty to PIllOl1, dnd (hat his dIve Il1to sh,dlmv \vater was the sole proximate C,lUse ol'hls IIlJuries. For the reaSOllS set forth above, thc Court lImis thai Pillon was till' sole llrOXlm,lle cause \lfhis l11)unes. i\ Cl'nrd Illg! y, (';mio' S 1110tl011 summ,lI-y j uugmcn t IS gmnt ed ;.I d the com p Lun! all d ;IiI c rll,-,;,~ for n CI,lillls ,lgaIllst It arc dIsmissed Lc\inglon lllOWS (it () 13) for an order pursuant !o CPLR 321 ~ gwnting SUl1llll,lr:--' jUliglllClll ;]ntl ,\ declaratIOn lhat the tlllrd-pany dekndallt/second third-party defendant Merch<Hlts IS obligated to ddelld ,me! IIHlcll1nJly I)\) Lynn nnd 105 Lynn on a primary basis In the plallltliTs' underlYlllg ~Ict](lll till' persollal IIlJUl"ll'S. It IS undisputed that Merchants Issued a C01l1l11ercI<.11 general liabilIty poliCY (\) lJMe PllH1n'S employer, hearIng poliCY llumber CiLP91()7J3(), erfectiveJuly 14, 2()04 to July 14. 21)()~ (Ivicrcll,lll1s policy). Le:\lllgtOll, ill support or Its motion submits the Merchants L::l1dOrSeIllCt1t Form MU-7647 (O()/(J]): pol icy whIch pnwides, III ,Ill ,Iddcd [* 10] PIll0n v 99 Lynn Avenue LLC Indl'.\ No. 08-2379X Page I () MERCHANTS GENERAL LIABILITY COMPLLTE ENDORSf'MENT This cndorsemcnt modifies COMMERCIAL insurance provided GENERAL LIABILITY under the fi.)lIowing: COVERA(jE FORM 8. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS· Ill' CONTRACT AC;REEMI.NT OR PERMIT SEcnON II - WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to included as an insured: 5. a. 1\ny person or orgalllzatlOn YOLI re required by a written a contract agreement or permit to name as an lllsurcd is an insured but only with respcct to liability arismg out of: I. "Your work'· performed for that insured at the location deslgn:lh.:d in th~ contracl, agreement or pl'rmil; or *** b. ThIS insurance docs not apply unlcss the conlnlCI, agreemcnt or permit is made prror to the "bodily injury" or "property damage" d. This 111surancc is primary If that is requln .,d by the cOlllract, ,lgrl'elllcllt Of permit. In <Iddit"lOI1. ¢... L '.,ingLol1 submits the contracts between LYlln ilnd Vlckel·s whil'h rcqulred Vil'kcrs to ubt,lItl such Illsurance ,1Swould protect Lynn and Vickers li·ol1l daillls which 1111ghtarise out or \/id:e(s ()pc 1·;llI011:' uncler the cnnt racts. wht::ther by itsel f or a subcontra('.lur, ,-lnl! [he l'unt fal'l bet \WCI1 \' il' kc I·" ,lIll! PMC I()r rhe per1ud Jallu,lry !, 1005 to December 3 J. 2005. Tht.::laueI' I'Olllract required PMC to uhtlill Illsur,llll'C ""naming rthc Owner, and VickcrsJ as an AddillOllai Insured Oil d prl111tlry baSIS." Ln111glun <lls() suhmits Accord l;orll1 Certificates of Liability Insunlllce issued 011behall'ol'PMl" by Its insural1ce hruker datcd M,lrch 22, l()O). The cenitil'ates indicate that PMC held a colllll1en:i<.li gcnera!li,-lhility coverage polll'Y Issued by Merch<lnts 1l<1111I11g Lynn and Vickers as <lClditional insureds. Merdlant.s· l'Olllcnta)11 <)9 lhat Lexingtol1 helS railed to cstabllsh that the alh.:ged conlract bet wt;:cI1Vil'kers ,md Piv](· were actually signed by PMC or that the contract relates to the subject work J"lroJccts is will1011tll1efi1. ;\ revIew Ill"the entire record reveals that Pin0J11cstified that his boss at PMC was Paul Schneider. that the contract was Signed by Paul M. Schnieder. and that Mr. Schneider's middle name \Vas MIChad as In Paul Mich;lel COJllractmg Corp. In addllioll. tilt: proposal made by PMC to Vickers for the masonry work ~ll the two subjcct propertlcs contains the signature of Paul M. Schneider. The Co un limb that Lynn arc additioJl:lI lt1s11rcds under thc Merchants policy. as they arc organizations which PMC was reqlllred to name as an additi(Hl,11 in."llrC{!lllllicr the subject endorselllent. LexinglOll contends that it is also clear that Lynn arc additional insureds LlndLTthe Merchants po!iL':beeallsl~ Pinon"s injuries arose out llC or in connection with. PMC"s work at the construction site Her\..'_till' subject addillonal insured endorsement states tllat Lynn and VIckers an; additlOnal insureds "only \\·ith [* 11] Plnoll v 99 Lynn Avenuc LLC Indcx No. {)~-2J79~ Page J I respect to lJabllity arising out of f.PMC's.l \vork for that insured." The phrase ",lrislIlg out 01" has been interpreted to "mean ongl1lating from. incident to, or haVing connectIon with" (Marouey I' Nell' York C(,III, .tl4ut. Fire IllS, Co.. 5 NY3d 467, 472, SOS NYS2d 533 [2005], quotlng.4l-'fl/a Cas. & Sur. Co. J'Libel'fY !14m. IllS. Co., () I AU2d J 17, 320-321, 459 NYS2d t5S [19831), and nx]ulres "nnly iil<l! thelc he sOllle cclusal n:iatlollshlp bct\veen the injury and the nsk tor whIch coverage IS prOVided" (Maroney. SII/)]"(I a( 471)_ LeXington argues that Pinon's aCCident arose JIlcidellt to, and III COIIIH:ctioll \vith, 11lsw()d, I(lr J!MC hCl':lusc. :nl'lnl1g othcr thlllgs, PIIlon was driven to the work sitc by hIS employer ill1d ull(lblc to k,IVC dllrll1~ the work day, dlld th;.1tPawn became "overheated" as a result of his .Job duties. t'v1c-n.:hallb ,lrgul's tl1dtlll'-.' clccldent did 110tilrlSe out oj" PMC's operations in that Pinon \Vas on hIS IUIlch lxeak and he \Vas not InJun:"'! while ,\C1lllg \Nithlll the scope orhls employment. The Court is Llllpersuilded that Plnun's ,\ecldcnt did !iul ",\rise out of' PMC's operations (Regal COIISI.Corp. 1'. N{ffioltal Ulliol1 Fire llts, Co. (~rPittsburgli, P.,l. 15 NY3d 34, 904 NYS2d 33k [2010"]: c(, Worth COIISt, Co, I)Admh-all/ls. Co., iO NYJd 411, SY) NVS2d 101 j"200S])_ ThIS IS espeCially true where the Court has held that Pin()\l's i\c[IOliS ClJllsIltUtcd ,I superscdil\g CdUSt'ot'his Injuries, and (\ determination as to potential other c.\usativc 1~\I.:torsIn, IIU[ hecll made ;\s nured ahove, an insurer's duty to defend anses whenever the '"four corners" orthc llilderlyilli; cumplalIlt potentially give rise to a covered clulln (Worth Comitr. Co. I) .-"Idmirallns. Co, . .l'lIjJm). ! kn.:-_ the complamt III the Pinon action potentially gave rise to a covered claim against Lynn. Based Ull PlIllln's cUillplamt, a .JUI")' ould reasonably find that Pinon was not an employee of PMC at the time or his accidclll. c but that hiS Injuries ,1rose out ofl11S employment. In addition, it has been held that all ()I"c18r lsIlllsslng all d LIIlderlYll1gaction ,\gainst it party does not render academic its claIm agumst an Insurer ror Iltig,\tiull e:-.:pellscs mcurred In defending the llnderlYlIlg action (Judlau COlltr., JIIC. I) JYestc!lester Fire If/s. Co. ..j.() i\D::Id 482, S51 NYS2d 391 1:1 sr Depr 1007]; see also Xingjitlll COllst., Inc. \' Atlantic ('as. Ins. Co... ,1 Mise 3d 1210[AI, t)29 NYS2d 103 rSup Ct, New York County lOl Ii). 1-11:1"(', Court's dl'lCnnll1allOIl thl? dismissing the COlllpt,lInt against Vlckcrs, Merchants' Insured, docs not" forecluse Lynn's right In rl?imbllrsl'llll'Il1 j()r I1tlgatlOn e:-.:pcnses paid by them 111 dcl"cndlI1g the PIIlUIl :.lCt"lllll.i\ccorliint',ly, that branch orthc lllotlOn which secks a declaration that Merchant IS nbllgarcd to deICnd ()() LYIll1and I().'\ l.ynn IS granted_ However, the question remaills whethl:r said duty to defend is on :\ pi-illlury b'ISIS. i\S ,1gctll'ral rllk "unless il would distort the plain l1leanlllg of tile poliCies, where therc arc multiple pullcies covenng till' s,lllle nsk, dnd each generally purports to be exccss to the otheL the exccss covenlge clauscs arc held 10 e;llleci each othl:roLit ,1I1deach Insurercontrlbutcs in propurtiOll!l) Its limit alllount ofillsur:lllcc" (SUIte Farm Fire & CliS. Co, l' UMouro, (15 NY2d 369, J74, 491 NYS2d 534[19851: Lumbermell.\' ,'\tlut. ('liS. Co. \' AlIst([1(!IllS, Co.. 51 NY2d 651,435 NYS2d 953 1980]; American Tr. Ins. Co. J.' ('olltiIlCl1tul Cas. IllS. Co., 215 AU2d 342, 625 NYS2d (153 [2d Dept 1995"1). However. ·'othcr 1l1surance" clause,..; apply nnl:-whclltwn or more policies proVide coverage during the sallle period and SLTVC prcvelltilluilipll' to recoveries I']-(mlsuch polICies (Consolidated Edisoll Co. oj"lV, V l' Allstate JIIS. Co" 9S N Y2d 20g. 74h NYS2d (12:2l2002-1). !-lel'c, the Merchant polley and the Lexrngton poliCIes do nut cowr the S:\IllC risk The Merchants polley IS I1ltcndcd to provide coverage to Lynn I"orelalms ariSing out oj" PMC's w(lrk. Till' Lexington poliCies ;lre IIltcnded to provide coverage to Lynn for claims al"1slllg ti'ull1 111<..'lr llegllgencc' UIf,llIll as l1\vncrs ol'tlle properties. Under rhe elrcumstanccs, Lcxlllgton has bikd to I:stahlish ilS cntitkllll'lli to Sli11IlWI)' Judgment and a declanltlon that Merchants has a duty to dcfend Lynn on :\ pl"l1l1:\r}' asls_ l b r Illlighl of the Court's detcrllll1latlOlJ that lVlcrchants has a duty to defend thcm. Lynn :ll"l'ellliticlll,l [* 12] PillUIl v 99 Lynn Avcnuc LLC Index No. OX-1379N P8g..: 12 reilllburs..:ment of the amoullts l'xpcnd..:d by them in defending the Pinon llCl1UI1 Although there is nll application t()r such rCHnbursclllcnt within Lexington's mOl ion, the Court finds th~l1complcte reliefcallJ]()\ he gratlled in these actions without including Merchants' obligations 10 I.ynn, and a hearing to determine th..: amount or said n:imburscment is warranted. Moreover, since the relief grunted is an cssemial componcnt oCthe relief demanded, Merchants may not be said to haw been pn~Judlccd by Le.xmgton's failure to dcmand the reltcfspccifically (see, Siegel. Practice Commentaries, McKinlll'Y's COilS Laws or NY, Book 7B. (,PLR C2214:5). Th..: second branch or L..:xington's motion seeks a declaration that Merchant is obligat..:d to mclcmni (y Lynn till' any scttll'll1cnt or judgment in Ihe Pinon action. For tile reaSOllS set /i)fth above. the dismissal ol"the plaintiffs' complain! agamst Vickers and PMC means that Merchant call have no obligation to indemnily its insured or any additional msurccl under the Merchant policy. Accordingly. I.exington's motion for summalY judgment is granl":o to the cxtelll that it is elltitled [n a declar8tlon th;}t Ml'n:hant is obligated to de tend 99 Lynn and 105 Lynn ill the Pinon action. and scheduling a hearing. as set r0l1h below, to determine the <.lmOlltllOr~ll1YreJlllbUrSemelllllwed to Lynn_ Vickers moves (# 0 (4) t(lr an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting SUml1l~lryjudgm":ll1 and a declaratIOn that the third-party defendant Merchants is obligatl'cl to defend it on a prim,lI-y basis ill the Pinon action. ,UK!that Merchants is obligated to reimburse it for all attorney's !t:es Incurn:d to date In defending the Pinun actIun. As noted above, Merchants Issued a commercial gen..:ral liability policy to PMC Pmon·s employer, which was ctfcetlve at the tUlle of Pm on's aecicknt (IVlerc!l.lI1t'i poltcy). fll support 01· its motion, VICKers submits its contracts \vith PMC which required PivlC tn obtal!l ilNtrance "naming Ilhe OWl1er, and Vickers] as all Addltion,ll!nsunx! on <.lprimary hasis." f"vlen::11<.1111:-;· contention th,11 Vickers has failed to establ1sh that the alleged CDlllract betwe~l1 the partics was actuully Signed by PMC or thai tile contract relates to the subject work pn>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<lS 1-\1LI1 Schneider·. rhatthl' cOI1\'r;\ct was signed by Paul M. Schl1lcder, and that Mr. Schneider's middle name ,vas MiciJ'lCI. ,IS in P~lul Michael COl1tr;lctillg Corp. In addition, the proposalmacle by PMC to Vickers ror lhc masonry work at the tv,'O subject properties conlalllS the signature of Paul M. Schneider Thlls, Vickers IS ~1Il llI"g,illlZ<ltlOll VhlCil PMC was required to name as an additiol1<lIIIlSUrcd undcr lhe addill()ll~li Insured \ endorsemcnt discussed abovc. In addlllllll, Vickers contends that Merchant must provide it with coverage hecause Pin()ll·s mJufI,'s amsc out tlf. or In I,:ollnec!'ion with. PMC's work at the construction site. I !crc, the subjel·l additional insured endorsement SLales lhat l.ynn and Vlckl'rs arc addi\lonallilsureds "only with respect to liability ariSing out 01'1 PMC"sj work tor that lllsured." For the reason set forth above. the Court IS unpcrsuadcd lhat Pillon's accidellt did not ··arise out of' PMC's operations (Regal COllst. Corp, r. Narioflul [iniON Fir£' /I1S. CO. ofPi1Tsburgh, P..I. supra: if. Worth COfist. Co. v Adlllimi Ins. Co.. ""1I1,m)Vickers has ..:stablisl1ed its cntitll'mcnl to summary Judgment and ;1 dcclaratlOtl th;i1 it is an additional lllsllnxl under the Merchants policy, and Merchants has failed to ralSC on Issue or f;ll't reqllirill~ ;1 lrlal or tile is:-'lIe. As Merchants' duty to defend is broader than its duty to imkll1l1ify, it IS obligatl'u III defend Vickers eWIl iL at the conclusion of the Pinon actlOn, it IS found to have no obligation to llldelllnif~' Vickers (see Automobile IllS. Co, of Hartfonl11 Cook. sl/pm). However. lor the reaSOllS set forth above. [* 13] Pillon v 09 Lynn A venue LLC Index No. ().s-n7()~ Page I J VICKers has j~llkd to establJslJ its entitlement duty to defend it on :1primary basIs. to sUnlmary Judgment and a declaration lhal Merclwllts h~IS~l To the extent that VICKers' motion seeks a declaratlO[l that Merchant L'iobllg:lled to il1dcl111111)! l\lI" [t any settlel11cnt or judgment In thc Pillon action, the mution is dellied as acadeIlllc. The dismissal oi'tilc plaintl!fs' complaint against VIckers and PMC means that no settlement by, orJudgmenl agalllst, Vickers will result In any event, Vickers l~l1led to establish \vl1ether Pinon's injuries arose ()ut of PMC's \vurk Sl) as trigger indclllnity coverage under the Merchants' policy. Accordingly. Vickers' motion for sUlllmary Judgment is grunted 10 the extent that it is entitled [0 '.1 declaration that Merell<lnt IS obligated to defend it In the Pinon action and scheclullllg a hearing, as sd runh below, 10 determine the amount of any reimbursement owed to it. Merchants moves (# 01 6) for summary judgment and a declaration that IllS nol obligated 1\) dell:nd or indclllnit).-· ()l) Lynn or 105 Lynn 1Jlthe underlYlllg action, that II is not obligated to defend or indl'll1ll1iy Vickers 111 underlYlllg actIon, ane! that it IS not obl1gated to reimburse 'J'J Lynn, IOS Lynn or Vickers ii)I' the the costs Incurred to dale in del"ending the underlYlllg action. In so Illovmg, Merchants 1ll;lkt~Sllliln)/ nl'tile same arguments set [<.nth III Its Opposition to Lexington's motion (# 01]), deCided ilbovc To t[le e.\tclltlh:ll the instant motIon asserts tllat 99 Lynn, IOS Lynn and VIckers arc not additionallnsurecls under the Merchants poliCY because PMC did 110tagree to so name them lJ1a written contrac\', nnd because the policy provides coverage only with respect to "liability' arising out of ' your work' perl'onncd for that Insul-cd."' ('ile Court's determinatIOn above resolves the lll'ltter. In addition, I'or the reasons set (i)rlh above, IVkl-CI1:111ls' contentioll that it is not ob1Jgated to rell11burse Lynn or Vickers IS WIthout ment. Merchants 1ll,lk~s t\VO ad(!Jt1onal arguments III support of its contention that it IS not oblJgarcd to defend or Illdenmlf)-' Vickers. The first IS that Vickers hJled to eswb1Jsh th,lt it notified II/Ierchants ur Plnoll's Injuries in 1005, the second that Vickers I'ililed to lilclude a copy of ItS Insurance policy WIth h:-;c.\ III its 1110t1OI1 papers. InItially, the Court notes that an additional insured 11,IS II1dependcl1t dUlY to Ilolily an an Insurer ofu covered occurrence (Ci~)! (~lNeH' York v St. Pall! Fire alU! Mar. Ins. CO.. :2! ADJd '07K. SOI NYS2d J(l2 [2d Dep! 1005]). However, the record reveuls th:lt Merchants W,lS llo11tied of the UCCLIlTCllCC, Vlckcrs involvement, at some point well bet()re A.ugust 10,2005, whe[] It Issued ~1 and dlScl<llllKr letter to a number urthe ddendants herelH, IllC!udlllg Vickers. Merch,lllh CI[lllO( cs[ablish its ellti tk ment 10 s 1111l111ary Judgment on th is issue by poi nti ng to gaps 111 adversary's proof ((JJ F COW1/". Its Corp. II CoslI/opolitan Decorating Co., 35 AD3d 535, 828 NYSld 40l) j"200()"j;Adler I,' Sut/rd/'; Cf)l/f/~l' Water Auth .. J()(} AD2d 220, 760 NYS2d 5231'2003]). In addition. the Courtllotes, as scl !i)rlh III fllOllWlL' J hereIn ~lb()ve, that 11has ruled on the relevance' of VIckers' insurance policy wil·h Esse" In tillS lll,lllcr. dnd that the l;lJ1un: llfVlekers to include said polICY does not have all imp:lcl on the Cnurt 's declsiun Ilen:lil /\ccurdmg.ly, that branch of Merchants' mutlon whIch seeks ,1dec!:mllion 1'11<\1 IS [lot ohlig,l1L'lll\l i! deli:nd and rClll1burse 09 Lynll, IOS Lynn, and Vickers IS denied. That branch or Merchants' l110tlun whIch seeks ,1dcci,lnlliO[lll1u( it IS [lOt ubli~~\led tn 111lkllllli(v ()\} L.ynn, 105, Lynn ur VIckers IS granted. For the reasolls set forth above, the dlslllissal ol'rlll: JlI~llllllrtscomplaint ,lgaillst Vickers and PMC' l11t:ans that 1\1creh,lI1Lcan have 110obilgut](ln tn llllklllnJl"y Its Illsurcd or ,lilY ac!cl1tlonullllslln.xlunc!cr the Merchant polley. Lcx.ington Illoves (if- (18) h.)f an order severing the seculld third-party actloll from thc Imin al"1)(lll [* 14] Pillion v 99 Lynn Intlt.'x No. OX-2379X Pagt.' J-l [t argues cOITI:ctly thai it is well settled that an insurance coverage action, such a...;the .seconu third-pany action ht.'relll. should not be tried togcther wIth a personal inJulY action against its insureds. Howt.'vl'r. (ollsitiL'ring Ihe Coun' s determinatIons urthe motions herein, and under these circulllstances. JudiCIal ecollomy and the convenience orthe parties would be served by allowing the actions to procc ¢... withmll;l d severance. In additIon. at this time there is no prejudice 10 Lexington in allowing joint discovery. or f"ulul"o .. : Illotion practice-. to proceed in this action as it is prescntly constituted. AccorJlllgly. l.e.'\ingwn 's motIOn ro sever the second third-party action IS dl'l1lcd \\'1\11k'avc to 1"l;I1CW, pnor to the trial ufrhe other ~lclions, upon the completion of discovery ~llld lillng ol"the 11011.,' UI"ISSlIl' herein. The cbilllS against ddcndants George E. VIckers Jr. EnterprISes, [nc .. Paul MIchael COlltractil1~ <':OI"p '-me! Cardo SIte Development Inc. dismissed herein are severed and the remailling C:lllses of adlOll .. shal I cont i 11lie (.1'('(' C PLR 32 12 [el rID. The parties are directed to appear fill' a hearing at the Supreme Court l3uilding. One Court Strecl. Part 9. Riverhead. New York <It9:30 a.lll. on .2012. and [Q produce appropn:ltc documenfation ll) support the alllount orcosts and attorney's fees sought by the respective claimants as fL'imburscment frolll LI,.'.'\ing!on Insurance Company. and Merchants MulUal Insurance Company. * The parties arc directed to seith; judgment in accordance with this order. However. the Court uin:cts rhat settlement ofsaidjuug1l1cl1t be held in abeyance pending the outcome orthc hearing to dL'lerl11inc rhe amount {)r reimbursement due fi"Olllthe insurers. Dated' Aprll:2. ~012 FINAL DISPOSITION TO: IlA:\TER SMITH & SHAI'IRO.I'.l. Attorney lor Ddcndant Cardo Site Developmcnt l)t) North Broadway Hicksville. New York I U~OI JOHN T RYAN & ASSOCIATES Attorney for Dcfendant Land Use Ecological .. JI Franklin Avc. Suite J 14 H Clardcn City, New York 11530 I IISCOCK & IlARCLA Y Anomey I"orThird utld Second Tlmd-Pariy Defendant McrclwlllS Mutual Ie Covnsel Sholl Cord'tct 'Me [(>.lIt fa r ~e. hear ll)j 0) Ct 1t '-'pun rC'LC'lpt o f 1r>, So 0<0'c[ S Iof] [* 15] Pillion \' 99 Lynll Index No. OX-2379R Page I:; 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 J tlOt DeICndanl Lexington

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.