From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arredondo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2004
6 A.D.3d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Summary

holding that "the duty of an insurance broker runs to its customer and not to any additional insureds since there is no privity of contract for the imposition of liability"

Summary of this case from Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v. Aon Risk Servs. Ne., Inc.

Opinion

3379.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 23, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of State National Insurance Company (State National) and Morstan General Agency, Inc. (Morstan) against defendant/third-party plaintiff Alps Mechanical, Inc. (Alps Mechanical), but denied the summary judgment motion of Adorno-Denker Associates, Inc. (Adorno-Denker), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion for summary judgment by Adorno-Denker dismissing the third-party complaint against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Lustig Brown, LLP, New York (Ellen Nimaroff of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Rutherford Christie, New York (Tania M. Torno of counsel), for Alps Mechanical, Inc., respondent-appellant.

Law Office of Max W. Gershweir, New York (Max W. Gershweir of counsel), for State National Insurance Company and Morstan General Agency, Inc., respondents-appellants.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


It is well settled that the duty of an insurance broker runs to its customer and not to any additional insureds since there is no privity of contract for the imposition of liability ( see Federal Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Ins. Brokerage Servs., Inc., 304 A.D.2d 316, 317; Glynn v. United House of Prayer For All People, 292 A.D.2d 319, 323; St. George v. W.J. Barney Corp., 270 A.D.2d 171; American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead v. Resource Recycling, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 420, 424). Accordingly, the duty of Adorno-Denker, as the insurance broker of its client Mile High, ran to Mile High, not to its purported additional insured, Alps Mechanical. Inasmuch as Adorno-Denker owed no duty to Alps Mechanical, the claim of Alps Mechanical against Adorno-Denker should have been dismissed.

In light of the independent contractors exclusion provision contained in Mile High's policy, it is of no consequence whether Alps Mechanical had, in fact, been named an additional insured under the subject policy. The independent contractors exclusion would have barred coverage to Alps Mechanical even if it had been named an additional insured ( see Moleon v. Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 304 A.D.2d 337).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Arredondo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 2004
6 A.D.3d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

holding that "the duty of an insurance broker runs to its customer and not to any additional insureds since there is no privity of contract for the imposition of liability"

Summary of this case from Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v. Aon Risk Servs. Ne., Inc.

noting that "[i]t is well settled that the duty of an insurance broker runs to its customer and not to any additional insureds"

Summary of this case from Santa Rosa Mall v. Aon Risk Serv. Cent., Inc.
Case details for

Arredondo v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:WILMAR ARREDONDO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 27, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 150

Citing Cases

Vissas v. Simon Agency New York Inc.

An insurance broker's duty "runs to its customer and not to any additional insureds . . . ." Arredondo v.…

Tower Ins. of N.Y. v. Joseph T. Reilly Co.

The only contractual relationship mentioned in the complaint is that between Reilly and Libardi, created when…