LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY v. SUPER VALUE INC (2012)

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Super Value, Inc., in an underlying action entitled Seda v. Super Value, Inc., commenced in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, under Index No. 309310/08, the defendant Super Value, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered August 8, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify it in the underlying action.

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 plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Super Value, Inc., in the underlying action.

The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it properly disclaimed coverage on the ground of late notice of the underlying accident (see Ciampa 21, LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 586, 915 N.Y.S.2d 871;  Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 728, 731–732, 915 N.Y.S.2d 305;  Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439;  Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428;  St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83;  Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 459, 461, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119;  Jordan Constr. Prods. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 14 A.D.3d 655, 656, 789 N.Y.S.2d 298).   In opposition, the defendant Super Value, Inc. (hereinafter Super Value), failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d at 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439;  Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d at 690, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428).   Super Value's contention that it had a reasonable, good faith belief in nonliability was belied by its failure to inquire into the circumstances of the accident at issue in the underlying action (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196;  Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76;  Hanson v. Turner Constr. Co., 70 A.D.3d 641, 643, 897 N.Y.S.2d 116;  York Speciality Food, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 47 A.D.3d 589, 590, 850 N.Y.S.2d 409;  St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 45 A.D.3d 411, 412, 846 N.Y.S.2d 113;  Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d at 461, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see Zimmerman v. Peerless Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1021, 1024–1025, 926 N.Y.S.2d 124;  Magistro v. Buttered Bagel, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 822, 825, 914 N.Y.S.2d 192;  Hanson v. Turner Constr. Co., 70 A.D.3d at 643, 897 N.Y.S.2d 116).

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Super Value, Inc., in the underlying action (see Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 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).