Opinion
No. 17221 Index No. 651364/21 Case No. 2022-01211
02-02-2023
Arch Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Nautilus Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, Bordone Contracting, LLC, Defendant.
Kelly & Curtis, PLLC, New York (Andrew I. Mandelbaum of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Morrison Mahoney LLP, New York (Kateryna Stupnevich of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Kelly & Curtis, PLLC, New York (Andrew I. Mandelbaum of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Morrison Mahoney LLP, New York (Kateryna Stupnevich of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence Love, J.), entered on or about January 13, 2022, which denied plaintiff Arch Specialty Insurance Company (Arch)'s motion for summary judgment and defendant Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus)'s cross motion for summary judgment seeking competing declarations as to Nautilus's coverage obligations to defendant Bordone Contracting, LLC (Bordone) in an underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The additional insured endorsement of the Nautilus policy, issued to its named insured nonparty GSC Services Corporation (GSC), stated that additional insured coverage would be provided only to "any person(s) or organization(s) when you [GSC] and such person(s) or organization(s) have agreed in a written contract or written agreement that such person(s) or organizations(s) be added as an additional insured on your policy." That language clearly and unambiguously required that the named insured execute a contract with the party seeking coverage as an additional insured (see Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d 146, 154 [1st Dept 2016], affd 31 N.Y.3d 131 [2018]; AB Green Gansevoort, LLC v Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2013]). Issues exist here as to whether the signed two-page subcontract between GSC and Bordone incorporated an "invoice requirements" page and whether that page sufficiently required GSC to procure additional insured coverage for Bordone.
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining arguments.