From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cargo v. N.Y. Marine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 2007
40 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 1136.

May 22, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff additional insured is entitled to the full benefits of the insurance contract issued by defendant insurer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

McMahon, Martine Gallagher, LLP, New York (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), for appellant.

Biedermann, Hoenig Ruff, P.C., New York (Peter H. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.


Under New York law, "each individual additional insured . . . must be treated as if separately covered by the policy and indeed as if he . . . had a separate policy of his own" ( Greaves v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 5 NY2d 120, 124), even where, as here, the policy is issued based on a material misrepresentation by the primary insured ( see BMW Fin. Servs. v Hassan, 273 AD2d 428, lv denied 95 NY2d 767). Accordingly, plaintiff additional insured was entitled to coverage under the subject policy, notwithstanding the circumstance that the policy had been issued based upon a misrepresentation by the primary insured and was void as to that party.


Summaries of

Cargo v. N.Y. Marine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 2007
40 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Cargo v. N.Y. Marine

Case Details

Full title:LUFTHANSA CARGO, AG, Respondent, v. NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE…

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

Date published: May 22, 2007

Citations

40 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4358
834 N.Y.S.2d 659

Citing Cases

Tocci Bldg. Corp. of N.J., Inc. v. Delos Ins.

By order dated October 19, 2010, this Court denied Ohio's motion, concluding that the proposed defense was…