Summary
finding that there was a "genuine conflict of interest between defendant insurer and plaintiff arising from [the defendant's] claim that plaintiff's conduct, forming the basis of the other action, may have been intentional and ... outside the scope of ... the policy"
Summary of this case from Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Houlihan Lawrence, Inc.Opinion
November 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).
There exists a genuine conflict of interest between defendant insurer and plaintiff insured arising from defendant's claim that plaintiff's conduct, forming the basis of the other action, may have been intentional and, thus, outside the scope of the stated coverage under the policy. Where the insurer's interest in defending the lawsuit may be in conflict with the insured's interest, the insured is entitled to defense by an attorney of his own choosing, whose reasonable fee is to be paid by the insurer (Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Goldfarb, 53 N.Y.2d 392).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.