Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrication, Inc. v Scottsdale Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrication, Inc. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. 2013 NY Slip Op 32177(U) September 11, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 103456/10 Judge: Paul Wooten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 911712013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNT HON. PAUL WOOTEN PRESENT: PART 7 Justice ELIOU & SCOPELITIS STEEL FABRICATION, INC., INDEX NO. - against- Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ.NO. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. The following papers were read on this motion by defendant for summary judgment pursu CPLR 321 2. Notice of Motion/ Order to Show _@use - Affidavits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ... - Exhibits (Memo) Replying Affidavits (Reply Memo) Cross-Motion: Ti Yes No Motion sequence numbers 002, 003 and 004 are hereby consolidated for dispositi In this action concerning liability insurance coverage for a personal injury, defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) moves for summary judgment, pursuant 3212, dismissing the complaint (Mot. Seq. 002). Plaintiff Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrica Inc (E&S) moves for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, in its favor on the (Mot. Seq. 003). Prospective intervenor Ebenezer Construction Inc. (Ebenezer) moves pursuant to CPLR 1013, for leave to intervene in the instant action (Mot. Seq. 004). BACKGROUND On September 29, 2005, Wilfred0 Lorenzo (Lorenzo), an Ebenezer employee, wa allegedly injured at a construction site at 343 Fourth Avenue, Kings County, the Park S Towers project (the PST Project). Alisa Construction Co., Inc. (Alisa), was the general contractor on the PST Pro'ect Ebenez r UNFILEb j U D G M k W misjudgment has not been entered by the under contract with A h a to erect steel a ce k lr and notice of entry G%mQt be served bag@&@O(?- T O obtain entry, counsel or authorized representative t-nust appear in person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (Room J41B). [* 2] S was under contract to provide Ebenezer with the steel products. Lorenzo was red while the steel products were being delivered. December 6, 2005, Lorenzo commenced a personal injury action, Lorenzo v 343 No. 24436/2005, in Bronx County Supreme Court (the Lorenzo Action), against the isa and E&S. Subsequently, Lorenzo amended his complaint twice, adding three ants who allegedly manufactured, supplied and/or distributed defective equipment e PST Project. Third-party actions were later commenced, however, they do not ime of the incident, Ebenezer had liability insurance coverage from Scottsdale icy number CLS 1063812 (the Policy). E&S purportedly was an additional insured y, but Scottsdale disclaimed coverage for E&S in the Lorenzo Action. E&S d the instant action on March 16, 2010, asserting causes of action for a declaratory the Policy s coverage, and for Scottsdale to indemnify and defend E&S in the DISCUSSION G attached to motion sequence 002 is a copy of General Indemnification of litis Steel Fabrication on All Jobs & At All Locations (the Indemnification his one-page document, dated December 16, 2004, originating with E&S, is fael Martinez (Martinez), identified as Ebenezer s treasurer. Among other things, it er to carry general liability insurance whenever working on an Eliou & eels (sic) Fabrication job site . . . [and] name Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrication oper and/or owner of the subject job site as additional insured for the duration of September 16, 2005, E&S issued a quote to provide steel to Ebenezer for $140,000 oject (Mot. Seq. 002, exhibit E). On September 20, 2005, E&S issued another Page2of 8 [* 3] e more steel to Ebenezer for $75,000 (id., exhibit F). Once countersigned by benezer, each quote became a purchase order for the quoted materials. tober 27, 2005, E&S s general liability insurer Illinois Union Insurance Co. (ILU) emand for Scottsdale to assume the defense and indemnification of E&S in the , based on the Indemnification Agreement (Mot. Seq. 002, exhibit H). Although nsurance for E&S was said to be attached to ILU s letter, but not provided here, oncedes that it was produced (Weisberg affirmation, Mot. Seq. 002, 15). laimed coverage of E&S on April 20, 2007, denying that it was an additional PST Project. In the Policy s Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement, red is defined as any person or organization: whom you are required to add as an additional insured on this olicy under a written contract, agreement or permit . . . That erson or organization is an additional insured only with respect to lability arising out o f . . . your ongoing operations performed for additional insured as specified in the written contract, ement or permit. based its refusal, in this instance, on the absence of a contract between S whereby Ebenezer is under an obligation to defend, indemnify or hold Mot. Seq. 002, exhibit L). Without such a contract, Scottsdale contends that ractual indemnification coverage to Eliou. FurthGr, there is no additional nt naming Eliou as an additional insured or providing additional insured (id,). A similar exchange occurred when E&S s counsel again tendered the emnification of E&S in the Lorenzo Action on May 22, 2009 (id., exhibit M),and ted the tender on June 18, 2009 (id., exhibit N). e s position does not deny the existence of an enforceable agreement, the Agreement, between the parties. Rather, it maintains that the Indemnification not apply to the PST Project, where Lorenzo was allegedly injured. Scottsdale Page 3 of 8 [* 4] relies upon the Policy s language in light of the testimony of Andrew Scopelitis (Scopelitis), of EBS s two principals, Martinez, and the language of the Indemnification Agreement. Scopelitis was deposed in the Lorenzo Action on September 26, 201 1 (Mot. S exhibit I [Scopelitis Tr.]). He sa9 that E&S fabricated steel beams for Ebenezer for the Project (id. at 11). Delivery to the job site was included as well (id. at 12). Scope the contract with Martinez, whom he believes is Ebenezer s owner, for the PST P 14). Scopelitis only dealt directly with Ebenezer in regard to the PST Project, not the landlord or the general contractor (id. at 52). In this instance, Ebenezer was not a contractor of E&S, although it had been on other projects (id. at 65). Generally, I hire Ebenezer to e that I fabricated. I m the primary contractor and he s the subcontractor. In this ca reversed (id.), Scopelitis stated that E&S was not a subcontractor for Alisa; we w subcontractors of Ebenezer (id. at 72). When asked whether the Indemnification Agreement was going to apply to this Park Slope Towers Project, Scopelitis replied, I do not know that (id. at 67). Martinez was deposed on June 19, 2012 in the Lorenzo Action (Mot. Seq. 002, exhibit J [Martinez Tr.]). He testified that he and his wife were the officers of Ebenezer, whi exists (id. at 17-18). He recalled that Ebenezer was a subcontractor on the PST P contract to Alisa (id. at 26, 34). E&S supplied Ebenezer the steel (id. at 32). Whe the Indemnification Agreement, Martinez said that it was not applicable to the PST Projec [b]ecause this document, it s when I work for Eliou Steel , . . [but] then I was work myself (id. at 81). At the PST Project, Eliou was working for me (id. at 82). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that should be granted only if no fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvaret v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). Th moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement t Page 4 of 8 [* 5] a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form demonstrating t material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 CPLR 3212[b]). The failure to make such a showing requires denial of the moti of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Smalls v AJl lndus., lnc., 10 NY3d [2008]). Once a prima facie showing has been made, however, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to existence of material issues of fact that require a trial for resolution (Giuffrida v Citib Corp.,IOO NY2d 72, 81 [2003]; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2 [1980]; CPLR 3212[b]). When deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court s role is solel any triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues (see Century-fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). The Court views the evidence in most favorable to the nonmoving party, and gives the, nonmoving party the bene reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (see Negri v Stop & NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, rY judgment should be denied (see Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 2 Scottsdale s Summary JudnmedMotion - Mot. Seq. 002 Scottsdale argues that Martinez placed the PST Project outside the sc Indemnification Agreement because of the reversal of the usual roles for Ebenezer an Scopelitis also recognized this role reversal in his testimony, although he dre about the applicability of the Indemnification Agreement. Scottsdale claims that E&S cannot be recognized as an additional insured on the Poli issued to Ebenezer in the absence of a written contract, agreement or permit that req to be added as an additional insured. Only the Indemnification Agreement re nam[ing ofl Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrication and the developer and/or owne Page5of 8 [* 6] job site as additional insured for the duration of the job. However, the PST Project job addressed by the Indemnification Agreement, as read by Scottsdale, because it E&S job site; it was an Ebenezer job site. Alisa engaged Ebenezer to erect steel which Ebenezer purchased from E&S, to be delivered to Ebenezer at the PST Project. Lo Ebenezer employee, was allegedly injured while offloading steel from an E&S truc Tr. at 18). Only one E&S employee was present on the job site (id.). The two September 2005 purchase orders are the only contracts linking Ebe E&S on the PST Project, and they identify E&S as the provider of product to Eben -/ Specifically, the September 16, 2005 purchase states, All steel delivered to site. not mentioned in either purchase order. While the Indemnification Agreement oblig Ebenezer to name E&S as an additional insured on a general liability insurance p whenever Ebenezer worked on an E&S job site, the terms and conditions of the 2005 purchase orders established E&S as the provider of steel products to Ebe PST Project. Scottsdale, therefore, concludes that the Policy does not extend to additional insured because no contract requiring such was in effect for the PST P The Policy extends coverage to an additional insured only with respect to out o f . . . [Ebenezer s] ongoing operations performed for that additional insured as the written contract, agreement or permit. [A] written agreement that is complete unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its te (Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]). Lorenzo s alleged injur rooted in Ebenezer s contracted work for E&S. To the contrary, Ebenezer was p under its contract with Alisa when E&S delivered steel to Ebenezer. The testimony of and Martinez lead to no other conclusion. Scottsdale, therefore, has no obligation to inde and defend E&S in the Lorenzo Action under the Policy, and its motion for summary dismissing the complaint shall be granted. Page6of 8 [* 7] , E&S s Summarv Judament Motion - Mot. Seq. 003 E&S moves for summary judgment in its favor on the complaint. This would yield a declaratory judgment that Scottsdale must defend and indemnify E&S in the Lorenzo Action. As discussed above, however, the Policy s definition of an additional insu to E&S at the PST Project. It is true that the well-understood meaning of the term [additional insured] is an entity enjoying the same protection as the named insure N. Y. v Traveler s Ins. Co., 99 NY2d 391, 393 I20031 [internal quotation omitted]). However, because of the particular nature of the business t Ebenezer and E&S at the PST Project, E&S was not an additional insur terms, and, therefore, was not entitled to the same protection as Ebenez motion is denied. Ebenezer s Motion For Leave to Intervene - Mot. Sea. 004 Ebenezer moves, pursuant to CPLR 1013, to intervene in the instant action, and to oppose E&S s summary judgment motion. The Court found above that th the Indemnification Agreement and the Policy, applied to the facts as out uncontroverted testimony of Scopelitis and Martinez, require dismissal of need for Ebenezer s participation in the motion practice is, therefore, m Ebenezer s motion is denied. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company s motio judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaint (Mot. Seq. 0 the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with costs and disbursements to taxed by the Clerk of the Court upon submission of an appropriate bill of ORDERED that plaintiff Eliou & Scopelitis Steel Fabrication, Inc. s Page7of 8 ge of [* 8] declaration that defendant Scottsdale Insurance Corn in the personal injury action of Lorenzo v 343 LLC, Su Bronx County (Mot. Seq. 003),is denied; and it is furth ADJUDGED and DECLARED that Scottsdale I defend and indemnify the plaintiff Eliou 8, pending in Bronx County; and it is further, ORDERED that Ebenezer Constr to intervene in the instant action (Mot. Seq. 004), is de ORDERED that of this Order upon all parties and upon the Clerk of th accordingly. This constitutes the Decision and Order -/ Dated: ST+ I U13 Check one: Check FINAL DISPOSITION
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.
