From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

General Sec. v. American Fleet Management

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2007
37 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 311.

February 22, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered December 15, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on their causes of action for breach of contract and quantum meruit against defendants A.W Transportation, Able Rent A Car, A.C. Rent A Car, Adee Truck Car Rental, Affordable Auto Rental, American Rent A Car, Bronx Rent A Wreck, Colonial Auto Rental, De Collo Service Center, Dover Rowmat, Freeport Rental Group, Ghasson Rent A Car, H. Quad Leasing, Huntington Auto Rental, Junction Service, Katelyn Enterprises/Elite Auto, Lansing, RJ Car Leasing, Rowmat, Rowtam, Safe Driving School, Swifty Rent A Car, and uncaptioned parties South Shore Rentals and Wolfson's Rental (collectively, the franchisees), and granted said defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing said causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Melito Adolfsen P.C., New York (Louis G. Adolfsen of counsel), for appellants.

McCarter English, LLP, New York (Thomas M. Smith of counsel), for American Fleet Management, Inc., Donald E. Somers, Able Rent A Car, Affordable Auto Rental, Colonial Auto Rental, Lansing, Inc., R.J. Car Leasing, Inc., Rowtam, Inc. and Wolfson's Auto Rental, Inc., respondents.

Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola, Lundell, Levitt Boylan, P.C., Northport (Kenneth Rothschild of counsel), for Vista Insurance Services, Inc., Ross Company, Summit Insurance Advisors,

Fleet Insurance Services, LLC and E. Arnold Powell, respondents.

Sills Cummis Epstein Gross P.C., New York (Jason L. Jurkevich of counsel), for Bronx Rent A Wreck, Inc., respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.


Under the clear and unambiguous provisions of the insurance policies and the deductible agreement between plaintiffs and defendant American Fleet Management, the franchisees are not liable for the outstanding deductibles paid by plaintiffs, and any ambiguities in the written agreements should be construed to favor the insured franchisees and against plaintiffs, which drafted the agreements ( see United States Fid. Guar. Co. v Annunziata, 67 NY2d 229, 232). There is no evidence that the parties, in their course of dealing, intended the franchisees to be liable for deductible reimbursements.

Because the franchisees were not obligated to pay the deductibles under the written agreements, the IAS court properly dismissed plaintiffs' second cause of action against the franchisees for breach of contract. The court further correctly dismissed the third cause of action against the franchisees for quantum meruit since plaintiffs' services were performed "at the behest of" American Fleet, not the franchisees ( see Kagan v K-Tel Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376). Plaintiffs fully performed on the valid written agreements, "the existence of which is undisputed, and the scope of which clearly covers the dispute between the parties" ( Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389). [ See 10 Misc 3d 1075(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52244(U) (2005).]


Summaries of

General Sec. v. American Fleet Management

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2007
37 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

General Sec. v. American Fleet Management

Case Details

Full title:GENERAL SECURITY PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1478
830 N.Y.S.2d 136

Citing Cases

Venture v. Laurus

The general conclusion that Laurus's entire transaction would otherwise not have gone through was neither…

St. Louis W., Inc. v. Pickard

We reverse, and grant appellant summary judgment dismissal, since no basis exists for imposing liability…