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.
LAFRAMBOISE GROUP LTD., PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LYONS FALLS PULP & PAPER, INC., WALT WILMSHURST, BOURDON'S INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reinstating the amended complaint against defendant Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company to the extent that it seeks a declaration and granting judgment in favor of that defendant as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that plaintiff is not entitled to indemnification or a defense from defendant Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company in the underlying action,
and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We conclude, for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the amended complaint against defendant Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company (CUIC) or the complaint against defendants Walt Wilmshurst and Bourdon's Insurance Agency, Inc. We note, however, that the court erred in dismissing the amended complaint against CUIC to the extent that it seeks declaratory relief rather than declaring the rights of the parties (see Pless v. Town of Royalton, 185 A.D.2d 659, 660, affd 81 N.Y.2d 1047; see also Teague v Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 71 AD3d 1584, 1586; Ward v. County of Allegany, 34 AD3d 1288, 1289). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly, and we grant judgment declaring that plaintiff is not entitled to indemnification or a defense from CUIC in the underlying action.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 15–01113
Decided: May 06, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)