From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 2005
19 A.D.3d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6372.

June 16, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered August 24, 2004, awarding plaintiff assignee damages against defendant insurer, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, upon the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant is obligated to satisfy the judgment entered against its insured (Schneider) and in favor of plaintiff in an underlying action for personal injuries, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

White Quinlan Staley, Garden City (Terence M. Quinlan of counsel), for appellant.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York (Christopher J. Crawford of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.


Schneider's written notice of claim advised defendant, inter alia, that he had been involved in an "altercation" with plaintiff and arrested; plaintiff's complaint against Schneider alleged, inter alia, that he sustained personal injury as a result of Schneider's negligence; defendant disclaimed coverage; and the jury in plaintiff's action against Schneider found that plaintiff's injuries were caused by Schneider's negligence. The motion court correctly held, inter alia, that the jury's finding of negligence collaterally estops defendant from presently arguing that Schneider's acts either were not a covered "occurrence" within the policy or fell entirely within policy exclusions for intentional torts and criminal acts. At least one possibility of coverage was reasonably suggested in the underlying action ( see Continental Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 648), namely, that Schneider acted in self-defense. Given such a possibility, and absent a court order otherwise, defendant was under a duty to defend Schneider, and its refusal to do so collaterally estops it from attacking the judgment in plaintiff's favor or raising defenses with respect to its merits ( see Ramos v. National Cas. Co., 227 AD2d 250). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing. [ See 1 Misc 3d 912(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50039(U) (2004).]


Summaries of

Martin v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 2005
19 A.D.3d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Martin v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Case Details

Full title:PETER MARTIN, as Assignee of MARTIN SCHNEIDER, Respondent, v. SAFECO…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
797 N.Y.S.2d 451

Citing Cases

Sapphire Inv. Ventures, LLC v. Mark Hotel Sponsor LLC

Collateral estoppel bars a party from pursuing a claim necessarily decided in a previous action where there…

Gallo v. Albert

Collateral estoppel bars a party from pursuing a claim necessarily decided in a previous action only where…