From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ill. Nat. v. Amn. Alternative

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 5089.

January 22, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which granted plaintiff's' motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment and, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered May 9, 2007, denying plaintiff's' motion and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff's in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP, New York (Ellen M. Spindler of counsel), for appellants.

Faust Goetz Schenker Blee LLP, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


The insurance contract issued by defendant to the nonparty asbestos abatement subcontractor includes as an insured "any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy." plaintiff's concede that the subcontractor's contract with the city plaintiff's' general contractor does not contain an agreement that the city parties be named as additional insureds. Contrary to their contention, the provision in the bid documents of plaintiff New York City School Construction Authority stating that the performance of asbestos abatement work "shall be governed by" certain terms and conditions, among which was a requirement to name the city plaintiff's as additional insureds, does not constitute an "agree[ment] [between the subcontractor and the city plaintiff's] in writing in a contract or agreement that [the latter] be added as an additional insured on [the former's] policy."

The certificate of insurance generated by the subcontractor's broker, by its terms, confers no rights upon the certificate holder ( see Moleon v Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 304 AD2d 337, 339).


Summaries of

Ill. Nat. v. Amn. Alternative

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Ill. Nat. v. Amn. Alternative

Case Details

Full title:ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 2009

Citations

58 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 308
872 N.Y.S.2d 26

Citing Cases

Lexington Ins. Co. v. Kiska Dev. Grp.

Kiska is not an additional insured under the policy that Mt. Hawley issued to Bayport, because the contract…

Guevara v. Dormitory Auth. of State of New York

Moreover, since the subcontract between TCL and Lefkas did not require TCL to name Leilas or Dormitory as…