From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pecker Iron Works v. Traveler's Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 13, 2003
99 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 2003)

Summary

holding that subcontractor's liability policy that named general contractor as an "additional insured" provided general contractor with primary coverage

Summary of this case from Barth v. Hardinge, Inc.

Opinion

11

Decided February 13, 2003.

APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the Second Judicial Department, entered January 14, 2002, which (1) reversed. on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court (James A. Gowan, J.), entered in Suffolk County, denying a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment and granting a cross motion by defendant Traveler's Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint, (2) granted the motion, (3) denied the cross motion, (4) severed the action against the remaining defendants, and (5) declared that defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff in an underlying action.

Stephen M. Lazare, for appellant.

Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, for respondent.

Before: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Graffeo and Read concur.


This case involves the relative obligations of two liability insurance carriers covering the same risk. The outcome turns on whether the insurance policy in question extends primary or merely excess coverage to "additional insureds." We conclude that the policy provides primary coverage, and therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division.

At the time of the injury giving rise to the present dispute, Pecker Iron Works engaged Upfront Enterprises to provide labor, materials and equipment for a construction project under the supervision of a general contractor. As a subcontractor, Upfront agreed "to furnish [Pecker] with certificates of insurance for Liability and Workers Compensation and name Pecker * * * as an additional insured." Upfront's insurance contract with the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut — the policy at issue — provided Upfront with primary coverage, and also covered such "additional insureds" as Upfront would designate in a written contract. Another provision of the policy provided that for those "additional insureds," coverage would only be excess, unless Upfront "ha[d] agreed in a written contract for this insurance to apply on a primary or contributory basis."

Sued incorrectly as "Traveler's Insurance Company."

An Upfront worker was injured at the site and brought suit against the owner of the property and the general contractor (see Jansen v. C. Raimondo Son Constr. Co., 293 A.D.2d 574). They in turn commenced a third-party action against Pecker. Pecker then brought this declaratory judgment action, seeking a judicial determination that Travelers was obligated to provide primary coverage for any liability resulting from the accident. Pecker based its claim on its contract with Upfront and on Upfront's policy with Travelers.

Supreme Court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss, concluding that, by its terms, the Travelers policy provided only excess coverage in the absence of a written, express designation of primary coverage and that the Upfront-Pecker contract contained no such written designation. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that there was no indication in the Pecker-Upfront agreement that as an "additional insured" Pecker would receive only excess, as opposed to primary, coverage. The Court thus determined that coverage for "additional insureds" was primary coverage unless unambiguously stated otherwise. We agree, and affirm.

Pecker's claim against Travelers arises from its status as an "additional insured" under the policy, so we begin with that document. It is undisputed that Travelers provided Upfront with primary coverage and that Upfront agreed to make Pecker an additional insured. "Additional insured" is a recognized term in insurance contracts, with an understanding crucial to our conclusion in this case. As cases have recognized, the "well-understood meaning" of the term is "an `entity enjoying the same protection as the named insured'" (Del Bello v. General Accid. Ins. Co., 185 A.D.2d 691, 692, quoting Rubin, Dictionary of Insurance Terms [Barron's 1987]; see also Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 92 N.Y.2d 363, 372; Wong v. New York Times Co., 297 A.D.2d 544, 546).

When Pecker engaged Upfront as a subcontractor and in writing provided that Upfront would name Pecker as an additional insured, Pecker signified, and Upfront agreed, that Upfront's carrier — not Pecker's — would provide Pecker with primary coverage on the risk. Pursuant to the policy provision at issue, Travelers agreed to provide primary insurance to any party with whom Upfront had contracted in writing for insurance to apply on a primary basis. When Upfront agreed to it, the policy provision was satisfied.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Order affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Pecker Iron Works v. Traveler's Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 13, 2003
99 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 2003)

holding that subcontractor's liability policy that named general contractor as an "additional insured" provided general contractor with primary coverage

Summary of this case from Barth v. Hardinge, Inc.

holding that subcontractor's liability policy that named the general contractor as an "additional insured" provided the general contractor with primary coverage

Summary of this case from Barth v. Hardinge, Inc.

noting that when a contractor engaged a subcontractor and provided in writing that subcontractor would name the contractor as an additional insured, the subcontractor signified that the insurance that would be primary on the risk of the project was the subcontractor's, not the contractor's

Summary of this case from Pac-Van, Inc. v. CHS, Inc.

In Pecker, Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. ("PIW") engaged the services of a subcontractor, Upfront Enterprises ("Upfront") to provide labor, materials, and equipment for a construction project.

Summary of this case from U.S. Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity

In Pecker Iron Works of N.Y. v Traveler's Ins. Co. (99 NY2d 391, supra), the issue presented was whether Pecker was afforded primary or excess coverage pursuant to its status as an additional insured under an insurance policy issued to Upfront, one of Pecker's subcontractors.

Summary of this case from BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group

In Pecker, the Court of Appeals stated: "When Pecker engaged Upfront as a subcontractor and in writing provided that Upfront would name Pecker as an additional insured, Pecker signified, and Upfront agreed, that Upfront's carrier — not Pecker's — would provide Pecker with primary coverage on the risk" (99 NY2d at 393-394 [emphasis added]).

Summary of this case from BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group

In Pecker, there was no challenge to the contractor's status as an additional insured; the only issue was whether the coverage afforded it as an additional insured was primary, as Pecker claimed, or excess, as the insurer argued.

Summary of this case from BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group

In Pecker, the Court held that "'[a]dditional insured' is a recognized term in insurance contracts, with an understanding crucial to our conclusion in this case.

Summary of this case from Tara-59 Holding Corp. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford

In Pecker, the Court held that A>[a]dditionl insured= is a recognized term in insurance contracts, with an understanding crucial to our conclusion in this case.

Summary of this case from Forty Second Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford

In Pecker, the Court held that “ ‘[a]dditionl insured’ is a recognized term in insurance contracts, with an understanding crucial to our conclusion in this case.

Summary of this case from Forty Second Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford

In Pecker Iron Works, the case involved the same issue of whether the additional insured was entitled to excess or primary coverage.

Summary of this case from STEIN v. 1394 HOUS. CORP.

In Pecker Iron Works, the case involved the same issue of whether the additional insured was entitled to excess or primary coverage.

Summary of this case from STEIN v. 1394 HOUS. CORP.

validating an additional insured clause

Summary of this case from Travelers v. Comm. Indus. Ins. of Canada

In Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v Traveler's Ins. Co., (99 NY2d 391, 756 NYS2d 822), a subcontractor "agreed to furnish [a contractor] [Pecker] with Certificates of Insurance for Liability and Workers Compensation and name Pecker... as an additional insured."

Summary of this case from Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Valley Forge Ins.
Case details for

Pecker Iron Works v. Traveler's Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:PECKER IRON WORKS OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. TRAVELER'S INSURANCE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 13, 2003

Citations

99 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 822
786 N.E.2d 863

Citing Cases

BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group

The question presented is whether plaintiff, as an additional insured under a commercial general liability…

Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

“If the terms of a policy are ambiguous ... any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured and…