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.
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to pay for the defense and indemnification of the Zimberg Trust in an underlying action entitled Gjoka v. Namdor, Inc., pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 25307-01, and that the defendant is obligated to reimburse the plaintiff for any amounts or costs incurred by or on behalf of the Zimberg Trust in that action, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered September 29, 2005, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied its cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to pay for the defense and indemnification of the Zimberg Trust in the underlying action, and that the defendant is obligated to reimburse the plaintiff for any amounts or costs incurred by or on behalf of the Zimberg Trust in that action, and declared that the plaintiff is estopped from denying that it has a duty to defend and indemnify the Zimberg Trust in the underlying action and that the defendant has no duty to contribute pro rata with the plaintiff in the defense and indemnification of the Zimberg Trust.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff was estopped from denying insurance coverage (see Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. 215 W. 91st St. Corp., 283 A.D.2d 421, 724 N.Y.S.2d 758; Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 258 A.D.2d 491, 685 N.Y.S.2d 267). Having accepted tender of the defense, without reserving its right to disclaim coverage, estoppel barred the plaintiff's subsequent request for contribution (see Donato v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 505, 548 N.Y.S.2d 779; cf. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Inter-Reco, Inc., 15 A.D.3d 443, 789 N.Y.S.2d 720). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
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.
Decided: February 13, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)