Harry J. Rashti & Co., Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

AAA SPRINKLER CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, Harry J. Rashti & Co., Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, New York Marine and General Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: April 20, 2000

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, SAXE and BUCKLEY, JJ. Mitchell J. Winn,Michael Margello, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Timothy G. Hourican, for Defendant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered January 15, 1999, which, in this breach of contract action, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The motion court properly determined that defendant-respondent, a general liability insurer, had not acted in bad faith when it failed to notify its insured or the insured's excess liability carrier of the possibility of a judgment in excess of the primary policy limits (see, Monarch Cortland v. Columbia Cas. Co., 224 A.D.2d 135, 137, 646 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 807, 655 N.Y.S.2d 887, 678 N.E.2d 500).   The insured was contractually obligated to notify its excess carrier of the likelihood of such a judgment and, although aware of such likelihood, failed to give its excess carrier the required notice.   Additionally, the motion court properly denied plaintiffs additional discovery since there was no basis to conclude that such discovery might yield evidence warranting a different disposition of the instant motions (see, Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v. H.D.I. III Assocs., 213 A.D.2d 246, 248, 623 N.Y.S.2d 871).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.