Opinion
October 7, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The antisubrogation rule does not apply here. The insureds, A-Drive, the lessor of the covered vehicle, and Continental, the lessee, did not share a common insurer. The policies obtained by A-Drive from Reliance and Jefferson did not name Continental as an additional insured. Rather, the insurer that they had in common was Travelers, whose policy was procured by Continental and named A-Drive as an additional insured.
Indeed, as an additional insured, A-Drive was entitled to coverage independent of the coverage provided to Continental. We reject Travelers' restrictive interpretations of coverage provisions and the additional insured endorsement that would render the latter meaningless ( see, ZKZ Assocs. v. CNA Ins. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 990). In any event, any ambiguity in the policy must be read in favor of the insured and against the drafter, Travelers ( Handelsman v. Sea Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 96, 101). We have considered Travelers' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli, and Andrias, JJ.