Rosier v Stoeckeler

Rosier v Stoeckeler 2012 NY Slip Op 08605 Decided on December 13, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 13, 2012
514286 514290

[*1]KENNETH H. ROSIER et al., Appellants,

v

JOSEPH STOECKELER SR., Respondent. (Action No. 1.)



JOSEPH P. STOECKELER SR., Appellant, C.S. BENSON & SONS, INC., Defendant, and AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, and KENNETH H. ROSIER et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Calendar Date: October 16, 2012
Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ.


Basch & Keegan, LLP, Kingston (Derek J. Spada of
counsel), for Kenneth H. Rosier and another, appellants. [*2]
Cook, Netter, Cloonan, Kurtz & Murphy, PC,
Kingston (Robert D. Cook of counsel), for Joseph P. Stoeckeler Sr.,
appellant in action No. 2 and respondent in action No. 1.
White, Fleischner & Fino, LLP, White Plains (Nathan
Losman of counsel), for American Western Home Insurance
Company, respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Lahtinen, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered June 21, 2011 in Ulster County, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in action No. 1, and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 21, 2011 in Ulster County, which, among other things, granted a cross motion by defendant American Western Home Insurance Company for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it in action No. 2.

These appeals in two related actions involve a Labor Law § 240 cause of action and a disclaimer of insurance coverage. Kenneth H. Rosier was employed by a company that had contracted to replace two garage doors at an automobile repair shop in a building owned by Joseph P. Stoeckeler Sr. In March 2007, Rosier was at the site working about three feet above the garage floor on a five or six-foot ladder disassembling a door when he fell, allegedly ending up in a four to five-foot deep pit in the garage. Stoeckeler recalled that he first heard of the incident about two to three months later from his tenant who operated the shop. In late October 2008, the attorneys for Rosier and his wife sent a letter to Stoeckeler, and Stoeckeler faxed the letter in early November 2008 to his insurance broker, defendant C.S. Benson & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter Benson). Benson neglected to notify Stoeckeler's insurer, defendant American Western Home Insurance Company, or American Western's agent, LoVullo Associates. Rosier and his wife, derivatively, commenced action No. 1 in February 2009 and Stoeckeler promptly delivered the summons and complaint to Benson, who misplaced the documents and failed to notify LoVullo Associates or American Western until June 1, 2009. Later that month, American Western disclaimed coverage based upon the failure to provide prompt notice. Stoeckeler then commenced action No. 2 against Benson alleging negligence and against American Western seeking a declaration of a duty to defend and indemnify.[FN1]

In action No. 1, the Rosiers moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability in their Labor Law § 240 cause of action. In action No. 2, Stoeckeler sought, in separate motions, a default judgment against Benson and summary judgment against American Western. American [*3]Western cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify and for dismissal of action No. 2 as to it. Supreme Court found factual issues as to the Rosiers' Labor Law § 240 cause of action and, thus, denied their motion for summary judgment in action No. 1. In action No. 2, Supreme Court granted Stoeckeler's unopposed motion for a default judgment against Benson. However, finding that the notice given to American Western was late as a matter of law, it granted American Western's cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it. The Rosiers and Stoeckeler appeal.

We turn first to the Rosiers' contention that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 240 in action No. 1. Not every fall from a ladder establishes that the ladder did not provide appropriate protection (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 288-289 [2003]; Beardslee v Cornell Univ., 72 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2010]). A prima facie case is established by proof that the ladder collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed, and this shifts the burden to defendant to produce "'evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of his . . . injuries'" (Georgia v Urbanski, 84 AD3d 1569, 1569 [2011], quoting Ball v Cascade Tissue Group-N.Y., Inc., 36 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2007]). Although Rosier submitted an affidavit indicating that his fall occurred when the ladder "shifted and began tipping," defendant countered by producing deposition testimony of Rosier in which he testified that he simply lost his balance and that he did not know what caused him to lose his balance. He further testified at his deposition that the ladder was in good condition, he had no problems with it, and he had used this same type of ladder many times while performing similar jobs. There is conflicting proof in the record as to whether Rosier fell on the floor of the garage or into the garage pit, and it is not clear from his deposition the role, if any, his handling of a door section had in his fall (cf. McGill v Qudsi, 91 AD3d 1241, 1242-1243 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1013 [2012]). Construing this proof most favorably to the nonmovant and further noting that an unexplained conflict between deposition testimony and a subsequent submission by the deposed party generally will not support summary judgment (see Natale v Woodcock, 35 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2006]; Stover v Robilotto, 277 AD2d 801, 804 n [2000], affd 97 NY2d 9 [2001]), we agree with Supreme Court that factual issues for trial exist on the Labor Law § 240 cause of action.

Next, we consider whether American Western was properly granted summary judgment. "Where a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given 'as soon as practicable,' such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time" (Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 743 [2005]; see Briggs Ave. LLC v Insurance Corp. of Hannover, 11 NY3d 377, 381-382 [2008]). Although recent legislation requires that a disclaiming insurer also show prejudice, it is undisputed that the policy in question predated the effective date of such legislation and thus American Western was not required to show prejudice (see Waldron v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 88 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2011]). Further, notice of a claim or a potential claim provided by an insured only to the insured's broker, and not to the carrier or its agent, generally is not considered sufficient notice to the carrier (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimmons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 442 n [*4]3 [1972]; Waldron v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 88 AD3d at 1054).

Here, the policy made clear that notice was to be given to American Western or its agent, LoVullo Associates. Benson was a broker and not an agent of American Western or otherwise authorized in any way to receive notice for American Western. Although Stoeckeler apparently promptly forwarded the October 2008 letter from the Rosiers' attorneys as well as the February 2009 summons and complaint to Benson, there is nothing in the record indicating that American Western had any notice of the incident until June 1, 2009. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that the delay in giving notice to American Western was unreasonable as a matter of law (see e.g. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Classon Hgts., LLC, 82 AD3d 632, 634 [2011]; Juvenex Ltd. v Burlington Ins. Co., 63 AD3d 554, 554 [2009]; Whitney M. Young, Jr. Health Ctr. v New York State Dept. of Ins., Liquidation Bur., 152 AD2d 835, 836-837 [1989]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs. Footnotes

Footnote 1:Rosier and his wife were, according to representations by counsel, later added as defendants in action No. 2. The amended complaint is not in the record.