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.
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ALBANY, et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant General Star National Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying action entitled R.W. Granger & Sons, Inc. v. City School District of Albany, New York, pending in the Supreme Court, Albany County, under Index No. 2502-96, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated June 28, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of the defendant General Star National Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant General Star National Insurance Company is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action.
It is well settled that clear and unambiguous provisions in an insurance policy must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, “and the plain meaning of the policy's language may not be disregarded in order to find an ambiguity where none exists” (Milbin Print. v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 283 A.D.2d 467, 468, 724 N.Y.S.2d 464). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that General Star National Insurance Company (hereinafter General Star) was not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action. The subject endorsement, upon which the plaintiffs relied in arguing that General Star was obligated to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action, did not provide coverage under the facts presented (see generally Lancer Ins. Co. v. Utica Natl. Ins. Group, 281 A.D.2d 461, 721 N.Y.S.2d 782). Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that they were prejudiced by General Star's delay in disclaiming coverage (see Esseks, Hefter & Angel v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 215 A.D.2d 430, 626 N.Y.S.2d 529).
We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant General Star is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action (see Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, 229 N.Y.S.2d 380, 183 N.E.2d 670, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, 83 S.Ct. 177, 9 L.Ed.2d 163, cert. denied 371 U.S. 901, 83 S.Ct. 205, 9 L.Ed.2d 164).
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: May 20, 2002
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)