From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacofsky v. Travelers Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-01310.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Travelers Insurance Company, d/b/a Travelers Insurance and/or Travco Insurance Company, is obligated to indemnify the defendant Kevin Hart in an underlying action entitled Jacofsky v. Hart, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 7655/02, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), entered January 13, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of the defendant Travelers Insurance Company d/b/a Travelers Insurance and/or Travco Insurance Company, for summary judgment.

Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll Bertolotti, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Dean G. Yuzek and Patricia Hewitt of counsel) and Robert M. Blakeman, Valley Stream, N.Y., for appellants (one brief filed).

Majewski Associates (Anita Nissan Yehuda, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P. SONDRA MILLER DANIEL F. LUCIANO REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant Travelers Insurance Company, d/b/a Travelers Insurance and/or Travco Insurance Company, is not obligated to indemnify the defendant Kevin Hart in the underlying action entitled Jacofsky v. Hart, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 7655/02.

The defendant Travelers Insurance Company, d/b/a Travelers Insurance and/or Travco Insurance Company (hereafter Travelers), insured the defendants Loraine Lazarus and Barton Lazarus under an umbrella policy with a $500,000 deductible per occurrence for automobile liability. The policy explicitly stated that to be an "insured" under the policy a "family member" of the named insured also had to be insured under one or more primary insurance policies for not less than the applicable deductible amount for an occurrence.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Travelers was obligated to indemnify the defendant Kevin Hart, the Lazarus' son, in an underlying action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injury. The complaint in the underlying action alleged that Hart operated his vehicle in a careless and negligent manner by engaging an automobile in a race along Lawson Boulevard in Oceanside. As a result, the automobile collided with the vehicle driven by Glenn Jacofsky, causing the death of Glenn Jacofsky and injuring the plaintiff Amy Jacofsky.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in her favor, and Travelers cross-moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the motion and granted the cross motion.

Where the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning ( see United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229, 232). Although Hart was a "family member" of the named insured under the terms of the policy, he was not an "insured" as clearly defined in the umbrella policy because at the time of the occurrence he maintained an automobile insurance policy with liability limits below the umbrella policy's applicable deductible.

Accordingly, Travelers established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that Hart was not insured under its policy ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in support of her motion, and failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the cross motion. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted Travelers' cross motion for summary judgment.

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant Travelers Insurance Company, d/b/a Travelers Insurance and/or Travco Insurance Company, is not obligated to indemnify the defendant Kevin Hart in the underlying action entitled Jacofsky v. Hart, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 7655/02 ( see Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jacofsky v. Travelers Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Jacofsky v. Travelers Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:AMY JACOFSKY, ET AL., appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. v. Peerless Ins. Co.

The "other insurance" provision of the policy issued by New York Central to Garrison is essentially the same.…

Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Dufault

This is not to say that an umbrella policy can never require insureds to maintain a minimum amount in order…