Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ACC Construction Corporation., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents, 590793/08 v.
Tower Insurance Company of New York, Defendant–Respondent–Appellant, Breen Electrical Contractors, Inc., Defendant. Tower Insurance Company of New York, Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. Nilly Tammy Perner Kasza, etc., Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
O'Leary & Spero, Staten Island (Maria D. Spero of counsel), for respondent.
_
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 25, 2009, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendant Tower Insurance Company's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no duty to indemnify plaintiffs in connection with the underlying wrongful death action, and so declared, and granted third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is undisputed that the commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Tower provided additional insured coverage to plaintiff ACC Construction Corp., as limited by the terms of the policy. The policy contains an independent contractors exclusion, which excludes from coverage “ ‘personal injury’ arising out of operations performed for any insured by independent contractors.” As the record demonstrates that the decedent was an employee of an independent contractor of ACC Construction and that his death arose out of his employer's operations, the exclusion applies as a matter of law (see Carriage Dev. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 4 AD3d 305 [2004] ).
In the third-party action, Tower seeks, inter alia, a defense and indemnity for costs incurred in connection with its defense of this declaratory judgment action from the decedent's wife, based on an indemnification provision contained in its settlement agreement with her in the underlying action. To interpret the provision in the manner urged by Tower would “produce a result that is absurd” and “contrary to the reasonable
expectations of the parties,” and we decline to do so (see Matter of Lipper Holdings v Trident Holdings, 1 AD3d 170, 171 [2003] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 4713
Decided: April 07, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)