Steinblatt
v.
RECO

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentDec 28, 1998
256 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
256 A.D.2d 571685 N.Y.S.2d 69

December 28, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs commenced a negligence action as a result of injuries which the plaintiff James Steinblatt allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, while riding as a passenger in a taxicab driven by an employee of the defendant All Island Taxi Corp. (hereinafter All Island). At the time of the accident All Island was insured under a Comprehensive Liability Policy issued to it by the defendant RECO, the Reinsurance Corporation of New York and/or the Reinsurance Corporation of New York d/b/a RECO (hereinafter RECO). The plaintiffs commenced the action seeking a judgment declaring that RECO was obligated to indemnify and defend All Island in the negligence action, because RECO allegedly failed to timely disclaim coverage in accordance with Insurance Law § 3420 (g).

The policy at issue clearly did not cover injuries which "arose out of' automobile accidents, but instead was limited to premises liability. ( see, Ruggerio v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 107 A.D.2d 744). Therefore, since the policy did not provide coverage for the underlying event, RECO was not precluded from denying coverage based upon the alleged failure to comply with Insurance Law § 3420 (g), and the court properly declared that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify All Island in the underlying action ( see, Presbyterian Hosp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 274; Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131; Ruggerio v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., supra).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.

Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.