Summary
holding that separation of insureds provision did not render the term "any insured" ambiguous
Summary of this case from Cnty. of Niagara v. Neth. Ins. Co.Opinion
74 A.D.3d 693 905 N.Y.S.2d 58 DRK, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. 2010-05698 Supreme Court of New York, First Department June 29, 2010
Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P., New York (Matthew C. Ferlazzo and James M. Adrian of counsel), for appellant.
Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP, Mineola (Robert Vadnais of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, FRIEDMAN, NARDELLI, ACOSTA, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered August 7, 2009, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving defendant insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying action for personal injury, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment only with respect to the plaintiff that was the underlying plaintiff's employer and also the subtenant of the accident site, and, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion with respect to the remaining plaintiffs, namely, the owner and main tenant of the accident site and the latter's managing member, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 22, 2009, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in favor of the remaining plaintiffs, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant's motion granted in full, plaintiffs' motion denied as academic, and it is declared that defendant has no obligation to defend or indemnify any of the plaintiffs herein in the underlying action. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment so declaring.
The " Exclusion-Cross Liability" endorsement states that the subject insurance does not apply to any actual or alleged bodily injury to an employee of " any insured." This Court has held that such language unambiguously excludes coverage even where the injured party was an employee of another insured under the policy ( see Tardy v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 213 A.D.2d 296, 624 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1995]; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. United Coastal Ins. Co., 216 A.D.2d 137, 628 N.Y.S.2d 637 [1995], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 808, 641 N.Y.S.2d 830, 664 N.E.2d 896 [1996] ). Neither the general " Separation of Insureds" provision contained in the policy, nor the separation of insureds doctrine ( see Greaves v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. 5 N.Y.2d 120, 124-125, 181 N.Y.S.2d 489, 155 N.E.2d 390 [1959], explaining Morgan v. Greater N.Y. Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn.,see 305 N.Y. 243, 247-248, 112 N.E.2d 273 [1953] ), renders this exclusion ambiguous. The Separation of Insureds provision primarily highlights the named insured's separate rights and duties, as well as makes clear that the limits of the policy are to be shared by all of the insureds, i.e., that they are not each able to exhaust the limits of coverage but must share that limit equally; it does not negate bargained-for exclusions, or otherwise expand, or limit, coverage ( American Wrecking Corp. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 400 N.J.Super. 276, 284, 946 A.2d 1084, 1089 [N.J. Super. Ct., App.Div.2008] ).
In any event, the Cross Liability exclusion here clearly states, in bold and capital letters: " THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY," and therefore would modify the Separation of Insureds provision to the extent the two clauses were in conflict. Plaintiffs' reading of the Cross Liability exclusion, however, would impermissibly modify it to change " any insured" to " the insured" or to " the insured employer," or other such limiting language that simply is not in the policy ( see Bretton v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 110 A.D.2d 46, 49, 492 N.Y.S.2d 760 [1985], affd. 66 N.Y.2d 1020, 499 N.Y.S.2d 397, 489 N.E.2d 1299 [1985]; RM Realty Holdings Corp. v. Moore, 64 A.D.3d 434, 437, 884 N.Y.S.2d 344 [2009] ). Furthermore, the Separation of Insureds provision is a general provision, while the Cross Liability exclusion is specific, and therefore the latter would control to the extent there is a conflict ( see Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp., 1 N.Y.2d 42, 46-47, 150 N.Y.S.2d 171, 133 N.E.2d 688 [1956]; see e.g. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., Inc., 62 A.D.3d 557, 880 N.Y.S.2d 33 [2009] ).
We have examined plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing.