Colony Ins. Co. v Danica Group, LLC
Annotate this CaseDecided and Entered: December 29, 2020
Before: Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, González, JJ.
Index No. 116200/10 Appeal No. 12742N-12742NA Case No. 2020-00192
[*1]Colony Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Danica Group, LLC, Defendant-Respondent, Zurich American Insurance Company et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Respondents.
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP,Woodbury (Eric B. Stern of counsel), for appellant.
Hollander Law Group, PLLC, Great Neck (Michael R. Strauss of counsel), for Danica Group, LLC, respondent.
Fleischner Potash LLP, New York (Alexandra E. Rigney of counsel), for Zurich American Insurance Company and Pav-Lak Industries, Inc., respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered
August 9, 2019, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment rescinding certain insurance policies issued to defendant Danica Group, LLC, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 2, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to renew its motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
While Supreme Court correctly found that the issue of the materiality of Danica's misrepresentations in its applications for the insurance policies was precluded as a result of Danica's default, we write to clarify that waiver may be argued as an equitable defense to the remedy of rescission (see Colony Ins. Co. v Danica Group, LLC, 115 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2014]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: December 29, 2020
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.