From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Continental Ins. Co. v. Faron Engraving Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 7, 1992
179 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

finding that the plain language of the waiver established that it applied only to specific property

Summary of this case from U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch.

Opinion

January 7, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).


This is a subrogation action brought by plaintiff-respondent Continental Insurance Company to recover for water damages sustained by its insured, plaintiff-respondent Buda Graphics, Ltd., a subtenant in a building owned and managed by appellants. The sublease incorporated by reference the provisions of the lease. Paragraph 9 thereof contains a subrogation waiver provision which covers contingencies associated with the partial or total destruction of the demised premises. Paragraph 8 holds the owner responsible for its own negligence resulting in damage to a tenant's property and contains no waiver of subrogation clause. Appellants moved to dismiss the complaint based upon the waiver of subrogation clause contained in paragraph 9 of the lease. Noting that the complaint alleged that the goods were damaged as a result of appellants' negligence, the court found that the action was not governed by the provisions of paragraph 9, but rather by paragraph 8.

While parties to an agreement may waive their insurer's right of subrogation (Board of Educ. v. Valden Assocs., 46 N.Y.2d 653, 656), a waiver of a subrogation clause cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specified context in which it appears (see, S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., 76 N.Y.2d 228). Here, the paragraph containing the waiver of subrogation applied only to destruction of the demised premises which rendered the premises unusable, and no such claim was here made. In construing the terms of the written contract, the court must accord a fair and reasonable meaning to its words (Sutton v. East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 555). Here, it is plain that the waiver of subrogation did not apply to this action involving damage to the authorized tenant's property caused by negligence of the owner.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Continental Ins. Co. v. Faron Engraving Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 7, 1992
179 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

finding that the plain language of the waiver established that it applied only to specific property

Summary of this case from U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch.
Case details for

Continental Ins. Co. v. Faron Engraving Co.

Case Details

Full title:CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of BUDA GRAPHICS, LTD., et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 7, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
577 N.Y.S.2d 835

Citing Cases

Viacom Intl v. Midtown Realty

Six paragraphs of the lease, the first portion of which is preprinted on a form that has been before this…

Szpilewski v. 31 E. 37th St. Corp.

While parties to an agreement may waive the right of subrogation, a waiver of subrogation clause may not be…