Opinion
June 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).
Concerning the owners' protective policy issued by defendant Firemen's Fund naming plaintiff as an additional insured and in effect at the time of the accident, questions of fact exist as to whether such policy covered the particular project where the accident occurred; if not, whether plaintiff relied on the certificate of insurance indicating that such policy did cover such project; and, if so, whether such reliance was reasonable in view of the certificate's provision that it was issued "for information only" and "does not confer any rights upon the certificate holder", and in the absence of any affirmative assurance of coverage by Firemen's Fund other than the certificate of insurance itself ( compare, Bucon, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Mfg. Assn. Ins. Co., 151 A.D.2d 207; Matter of Tavano v. Tavano Enters., 227 A.D.2d 836, lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1018). Concerning the general liability policy issued by defendant Home naming only the contractor as an insured, we reject plaintiff's argument that the certificate of insurance issued by Home, which stated that Home would "endeavor" to give the certificate holder advance notice of any cancellation of the policy, imposed a good-faith duty on Home to give plaintiff such notice, failing which Home should be estopped from denying coverage, and agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, the certificate created no affirmative duties whatsoever ( see, Horn Maintenance Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 225 A.D.2d 443).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.