Opinion
May 5, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.).
Order modified, by adding a provision directing Shaker, Travis Quinn, Inc., to provide International Business Machines Corp. (hereinafter IBM) with complete copies of its other insurance policies, if any, under which the insurer may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that may be entered against IBM in this action or to indemnify or reimburse IBM for payments made by it to satisfy the judgment, including the policy jackets, declaration sheets, and all schedule indorsements annexed to such policies. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
While performing his job at a construction site, the plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained severe personal injuries. Thereafter, he commenced this action against IBM, the owner of the site and general contractor, and Shaker, Travis Quinn, Inc. (hereinafter Shaker), a subcontractor, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law article 10. The defendants impleaded the plaintiff's employer, Orange County Insulation Corporation.
IBM moved for an order compelling Shaker to comply with its demand pursuant to CPLR 3101 (f) for discovery of insurance agreements. In opposition to IBM's motion, Shaker contended that the issue was moot because it had served a response to the demand, prior to the return date, disclosing one insurance policy. In its reply papers, IBM requested an order compelling Shaker to furnish a complete copy of that policy, and to produce any and all other insurance agreements which may provide insurance benefits to IBM for any liability it may have by reason of the plaintiff's claims, because, pursuant to the parties' construction contract, IBM was to be named an additional insured under policies insuring Shaker.
By order dated November 21, 1984, Special Term directed Shaker to provide IBM with a complete copy of the disclosed insurance policy (No. W632337), including the policy jacket, declaration sheet and all schedules and indorsements annexed to the policy. Special Term should also have directed Shaker to produce copies of any other insurance policies it possesses, which may provide insurance benefits to IBM for any damages that may be imposed against IBM in this action. This omission was apparently an oversight. Accordingly, the order is modified to set forth such a directive.
We reject IBM's contention that Special Term erred in denying that branch of its motion to vacate paragraphs 12 and 13 of Orange County Insulation Corporation's demand for a bill of particulars regarding IBM's third-party complaint on the ground that those paragraphs seek evidentiary material (see, Baumgarten v Lear, 26 A.D.2d 932). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.