Opinion
July 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.).
The allegations of the personal injury complaint in the main action fall within the coverage of the subject policy of liability insurance issued by Liberty Mutual, and specifically within the coverage afforded by that policy to NYU as an additional insured, and give rise to an obligation on the part of Liberty Mutual to defend NYU in the main action ( see, Frontier Insulation Contrs. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 169, 175). Even if we were to agree with Liberty Mutual as to the applicability of the exclusion in the additional insured endorsement for injuries "arising out of any act or omission of the additional insured[s] or any of their employees, other than the general supervision of work performed, for the additional insured by [the contractor]", and we do not ( Consolidated Edison Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 83; Lim v. Atlas-Gem Erectors Co., 225 A.D.2d 304; Tishman Constr. Corp. v. CNA Ins. Co., 236 A.D.2d 211), Liberty Mutual would nonetheless be estopped from relying upon the exclusion for failure to disclaim within a reasonable time ( see, Hanover Ins. Co. v. Suffolk Overhead Door Co., 207 A.D.2d 428, 430). As the motion court found, Liberty Mutual's notice of disclaimer, issued some 2 1/2 years after NYU's demand, was unreasonably delayed as a matter of law ( see, Hartford Ins. Co. v. County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028; Consolidated Edison Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d, supra, at 84-85).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.