From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Burlington Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 25, 2020
180 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

11133 Index 156200/15

02-25-2020

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Respondent.

Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Matthew C. Ronan of counsel), for appellants. Adrian & Associates, LLC, New York (Charles Benedict Bergin of counsel), for respondent.


Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Matthew C. Ronan of counsel), for appellants.

Adrian & Associates, LLC, New York (Charles Benedict Bergin of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant must defend plaintiffs Plaza–Schiavone Joint Venture (PSJV) and Plaza Construction LLC as additional insureds in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The relevant blanket additional insured endorsement to the policy issued by defendant to nonparty subcontractor Sal Vio Construction Corp. provided additional insured coverage to "any person or organization for whom you [Sal Vio] are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy." The written subcontract between Del Savio Masonry Corp. and PSVJ contained such an agreement, i.e., that Del Savio would add PSJV and Plaza as additional insureds under its policy (see Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d 146, 151, 38 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2016], affd 31 N.Y.3d 131, 74 N.Y.S.3d 162, 97 N.E.3d 711 [2018] ). However, Del Savio assigned its rights and obligations under the subcontract to nonparty Sal Vio Construction Corp., and defendant argues that it is not bound by the assignment. We disagree.

Under the assignment, Sal Vio, the assignee, "acknowledges that its obligation [sic] and liabilities under the Agreement [the PSJV–Del Savio subcontract] are effective as of the date Assignor signed The [sic] Agreement (as if Assignee was the original signatory thereof)." Thus, "by virtue of the assignments and assumptions obligating them to be bound by the same [subcontract]," defendant may be obligated to insure PSJV and Plaza (see Holbrook Realty, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4862073, *8, 2019 U.S. Dist LEXIS 131843, *21-22 [E.D. N.Y., August 5, 2019, No. 18–CV–1005 (JMA)(SIL) ] ). However, as defendant points out, issues of fact exist whether the assignment was made prior to the date of the underlying plaintiff's accident. The assignment expressly states that it is "effective as of the date of this Assignment." However, the assignment is not dated, and plaintiffs' evidence failed to establish prima facie the effective date.


Summaries of

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Burlington Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 25, 2020
180 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Burlington Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 25, 2020

Citations

180 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
120 N.Y.S.3d 25
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1307

Citing Cases

Secura Ins. v. Phillips 66 Co.

¶ 20 Conversely, Phillips 66 argued Illinois courts would likely follow cases involving an assignment,…

E. Harlem Council for Human Servs. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.

(See NYSCEF No. 58 at 11 n 7.) But although other recent decisions reflect the difference in language that…