From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tempesta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1995
214 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 24, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this action the plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while working for the third-party defendant Confort Company (hereinafter Confort) at premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff New York City Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the Agency) but possessed and operated by Confort. The plaintiff sued the Agency alleging a breach of the Labor Law. In turn the Agency commenced a third-party action against Confort for common-law contribution and/or indemnification.

Confort had obtained general liability insurance from Aetna Insurance Company (hereinafter Aetna) naming both itself and the Agency as insureds. Confort also obtained workers' compensation insurance for itself from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. Confort moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint arguing that its procurement of insurance which named the Agency as an additional insured waived any rights the Agency would have otherwise had to common-law contribution or indemnification up to the limit of the policy. The Agency cross-moved to amend its pleading to assert a cause of action for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court granted the branch of Confort's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and denied the Agency's cross motion to amend the third-party complaint. We affirm.

Contrary to the Agency's contention, the Aetna policy does provide coverage to Confort for the indemnification liability which Confort assumed under the lease, regardless of whether such liability arose from an employee related injury. In other words, the Aetna policy is applicable to the plaintiff's loss herein. Thus the Agency's claim for indemnification is in actuality a claim by Aetna against its own insured and "[a]n insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered" (Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 N.Y.2d 465, 468; see also, North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 281). Miller, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tempesta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1995
214 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Tempesta v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD TEMPESTA et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 209

Citing Cases

Walsh v. City of New York

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the…

Morales v. Gross

Here, the record reveals that the plaintiff's employer, Ullman, obtained liability insurance on its own…