Summary
holding that there was a duty to defend where sworn deposition testimony of the plaintiff indicated that his acts and their consequences were unintended, and if so proven would have been within the policy coverage provided by the defendant
Summary of this case from Park Place Entermt. Corp. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co.Opinion
March 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff established, as a matter of law, his entitlement to a declaration that the defendant is obligated to defend him in the personal injury action commenced by Fred Hill and Meta Hill and to reimburse him for all legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with defending that action. It is well settled that "if the insurer is to be relieved of [its] duty to defend it is obligated to demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and, further, that the allegations, in toto, are subject to no other interpretation" (International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 N.Y.2d 322, 325 [emphasis supplied]; Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311-312). The defendant herein has failed to meet this burden (see, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Riggio, 125 A.D.2d 515). Moreover, "[w]here, as here, the insurer has knowledge of facts which potentially bring the claim within the coverage of the policy it has a duty to defend even though the allegations of the complaint fail sufficiently to allege all of the facts requisite to do so" (Commercial Pipe Supply Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 A.D.2d 412, 415, affd 30 N.Y.2d 619; Sucrest Corp. v. Fisher Governor Co., 83 Misc.2d 394, 403, affd 56 A.D.2d 564). In this case, the sworn deposition testimony of the plaintiff indicates that his acts, as well as the damages allegedly sustained by Fred Hill, were unintended, and if so proven, would be within the policy coverage provided by the defendant.
Therefore, since the defendant did not establish that there is no possible factual or legal basis upon which it might eventually be held to be obligated to indemnify the plaintiff under any provision of the insurance policy, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief granted to him (see, Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., supra, at 312; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Riggio, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.