Opinion
April 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The cases construing 11 NYCRR 60.1 (b) have consistently held that where a judgment has been entered against an insured in an amount in excess of the insurance policy limits, the insurer is required to pay interest only on so much of the judgment as is covered by the policy (see, e.g., Shnarch v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 144 A.D.2d 795; Holubetz v National Fire Ins. Co., 13 A.D.2d 228; United States Fid. Guar. Co. v Hotkins, 8 Misc.2d 296; Home Indem. Co. v Corie, 206 Misc. 720, affd 286 App. Div. 996).
Although the obligation to pay interest on the policy limits accrues from the date that liability is established, rather than from the date on which damages are fixed (see, Love v State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 540), the insurance policy at issue here contained a provision which was "more favorable" to the insured than the prevailing law (see, 11 NYCRR 60.1 [b]). According to this policy term, the defendant agreed to pay additional interest on the full judgment against its insured, computed from "the time the court decides the amount" — i.e., the date damages were fixed (see, Trimboli v Scarpaci Funeral Home, 37 A.D.2d 386, affd 30 N.Y.2d 687). The defendant fulfilled that obligation. Where, as here, the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, the court properly enforced the contract terms as written (see, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 77 N.Y.2d 894; Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863).
In view of the foregoing determination, we decline to address the parties' remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.