From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tardy v. Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1995
213 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).


We agree with the IAS Court that the policy in question, which excludes coverage for "bodily injury to any employee of any named insured," unambiguously applies to bar coverage to an additional insured, such as appellants, against a claim by the primary insured's employee. As the provisions are clear and unambiguous, we must give them their plain and ordinary meaning, and refrain from rewriting the agreement (see, United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Tardy v. Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1995
213 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Tardy v. Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of New York

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES TARDY, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 34

Citing Cases

Hayner Hoyt Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co.

We disagree. The term "an insured" is unambiguous and, when used in the policy, encompasses both Olender and…

VGFC Realty Ii, LLC v. Carmine P. D'Angelo, United Statesi Ins. Servs., LLC

"However, the plain meaning of a policy's language may not be disregarded to find an ambiguity where none…