From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dudley's Restaurant, v. United Nat. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant United National Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs in connection with the underlying action.

In his complaint in the underlying action to recover damages for personal injuries, Eric Santarlasci alleged, inter alia, that the "bouncers" employed by Dudley's Restaurant, Inc. (hereinafter Dudley's) "did not control or stop" certain intoxicated patrons of Dudley's who "wrongfully, unlawfully, maliciously, and without valid reasons or probable cause [struck Santarlasci] to and about his body". Contrary to the arguments advanced by Dudley's in the Supreme Court and on appeal, any liability which might possibly be imposed on it in the underlying action would fall squarely within the terms of the "assault battery exclusion endorsement" of its insurance policy, which excludes coverage in connection with "claims arising out of Assault and Battery, whether caused * * * at the instigation of * * * or omission by the Insured [its] employees patrons or any cause whatsoever" ( see, Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. 72 Centre Ave. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 574; see also, Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Creative Hous., 88 N.Y.2d 347; U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Val-Blue Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 821, Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. Block 7206 Corp., 237 A.D.2d 427; United Natl. Ins. Co. v. Waterfront N.Y. Realty Corp., 994 F.2d 105; The Tunnel v. Bernstein, 988 F.2d 351). We see no merit to the contention of Dudley's that the "assault battery exclusion endorsement" is ambiguous in light of the policy's definition of "occurrence".

For these reasons, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment and a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Dudley's in connection with the underlying action.

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dudley's Restaurant, v. United Nat. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Dudley's Restaurant, v. United Nat. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:DUDLEY'S RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Respondents, v. UNITED NATIONAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 9, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 36

Citing Cases

WSTC Corp. v. National Specialty Insurance

"An exclusion for assault and/or battery applies if no cause of action would exist `but for' the assault…

Valenzano v. Valenzano

The Plaintiff's allegation alone that she did not sign the subject deed does not amount to clear and…