From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

44th Hotel Associates v. Zurich Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 18, 1991
174 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 18, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Gia Sereni, an employee of the plaintiff Royalton Hotel, commenced an action alleging that the hotel humiliated her by dismissing her in a condescending manner, in front of fellow employees, for the stated reasons that she was "not working out" and "not following orders." Sereni claimed that her dismissal was based upon her refusal to follow discriminatory practices of the hotel. Defendant refused to indemnify or defend the hotel, claiming no coverage under its insurance policy, and the hotel commenced this declaratory judgment action to determine the rights of the parties.

It is well settled that the duty of an insurer to defend is broader than the obligation to indemnify (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304). It is equally well settled that a liability insurer's duty to defend a suit against its insured is determined by comparing the allegations in the complaint with the terms of the policy. If such examination reveals that there is no reasonable possibility that the insured will be held liable for some act or omission covered by the policy, then no duty to defend is owed, and the insurer's motion for summary judgment should be granted (Meyers Sons Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Group, 74 N.Y.2d 298, 302).

We have compared the complaint with the terms of the policy and perceive no reasonable possibility that the hotel might be held liable for defamation or disparagement of a person's services, which are included in the categories of claims for which the policy provides coverage. Accordingly the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and a declaration entered that defendants are not obligated to defend or indemnify the Royalton Hotel in the underlying Sereni action.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

44th Hotel Associates v. Zurich Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 18, 1991
174 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

44th Hotel Associates v. Zurich Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:44TH HOTEL ASSOCIATES, Doing Business as ROYALTON HOTEL, Respondent, v…

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

Date published: Jun 18, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 251

Citing Cases

Urban Resource Inst. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Given the minor nature of the injuries allegedly sustained on plaintiff-insured's premises by the infant…

New York City Transit Authority v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

It is well established that an insurance carrier must provide a defense to its insured in an action if the…