From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 17, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant third-party plaintiff Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (hereinafter Ryder), the subject vehicle, a six-wheeled 1987 GMC box truck with a load capacity in excess of 2,000 pounds with a separate, enclosed storage area, rented by it to Saul Yabrow, a defendant in Action No. 1, was not a "private passenger auto" as defined by a policy issued by the third-party defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO) to Saul Yabrow ( see, Leudemann v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 828). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that GEICO had no duty to defend or indemnify Ryder in the negligence actions pursuant to Yabrow's agreement to indemnify Ryder for losses above the required statutory limit. The Supreme Court also correctly concluded that the third-party defendant Aetna Insurance Company (hereinafter Aetna) has no duty to defend or indemnify Ryder in the underlying action, as the subject loss is specifically excluded under the policy it issued to Yabrow.

Ryder's contention that GEICO and Aetna should be estopped from denying coverage because of their delay in disclaiming coverage ( see, Insurance Law § 3420 [d]) is without merit. GEICO's untimely disclaimer does not create an estoppel because the subject vehicle was never covered under its policy ( see, Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131, 138; cf., Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 205 A.D.2d 857). As an excess liability insurer, Aetna's duty to disclaim arises a reasonable time after the primary insurance coverage has been exhausted, or the retained limit met ( see, Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Sioukas], 51 A.D.2d 525, affd 41 N.Y.2d 872). As neither condition occurred here, Aetna had no duty to disclaim and cannot be estopped from disclaiming.

We decline to reach Ryder's remaining contention, as it is raised for the first time on this appeal ( see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bieder, 212 A.D.2d 693; Miller Org. v. Vasap Constr. Corp., 184 A.D.2d 763).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gardner v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gardner v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Defendant…

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

Date published: May 17, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 614

Citing Cases

Parillo v. Salvador

For this reason, we decline to disturb the amount so awarded as well as any interest which might accrue…

Michelle v. State

In opposition, Diamond failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Diamond proffered no excuse for its delay and…