From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Staats v. Wegmans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2008
48 A.D.3d 1115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. CA 07-00969.

February 1, 2008.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 5, 2007 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of third-party defendant Rochester Rigging Erectors, Inc. to assume the defense of defendant.

CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER, MONTE PAJAK, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL F. CHELUS OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (MATTHEW A. LENHARD OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Before: Martoche, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Rochester Rigging Erectors, Inc. (Rochester Rigging), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when an iron beam collapsed underneath him, causing him to fall 22 feet to the ground. Rochester Rigging and third-party defendant Solvay Iron Works, Inc. had been hired by Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. (Wegmans), the defendant in the main action, to perform portions of a construction project on property owned by Wegmans. Pursuant to the contract between Wegmans and Rochester Rigging, Rochester Rigging agreed to indemnify Wegmans for all liability arising out of the work performed, with the exception of liability arising from Wegmans' own negligence. Rochester Rigging moved to assume the defense of Wegmans in the main action based on that indemnification provision, contending that the defense of the underlying action should be controlled by the entities bearing the actual risk of loss, i.e., Rochester Rigging and its insurer. Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Rochester Rigging has not identified any statutory, contractual or case law authority that supports the relief it seeks. "As a general rule, a liability insurer has a right to control the defense of underlying litigation against its insured based on the right of the insurer to protect its financial interests" ( Ottaviano v Genex Coop., Inc., 15 AD3d 924, 925), but Wegmans is not the insured in this case.


Summaries of

Staats v. Wegmans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2008
48 A.D.3d 1115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Staats v. Wegmans

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. STAATS, Plaintiff, v. WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant and…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 1115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 863
852 N.Y.S.2d 514

Citing Cases

Spinelli v. Vornado Burnside Plaza

The defendant Vornado Burnside Plaza, LLC (hereinafter the landlord), argues that it owes no duty to the…

Bovis Lend Lease LMB v. Lexington Insu. Co.

Therefore, the issue is whether Bovis and the City (the insureds), on the one hand, or defendant (the…