From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Utica Mutual Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued May 11, 2001.

July 30, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant CNA Insurance Company is obligated to indemnify the plaintiff for 50% of the amount of a settlement in an action entitled Marinelli v. Oceanside Knolls, commenced in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 34471/95, and 50% of the attorney's fee associated with that settlement, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered March 6, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment, and the defendant CNA Insurance Company cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera Cinquemani, P.C., Mineola, N Y (Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick B. Simpson and Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate judgment declaring that the defendant CNA Insurance Company is obligated to indemnity the plaintiff for 50% of the amount of the settlement of the underlying action and 50% of the attorney's fee associated with the settlement; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, there are no issues of fact to resolve regarding the purported reservation of right to disclaim coverage issued by the defendant CNA Insurance Company (hereinafter CNA). CNA failed to timely disclaim coverage pursuant to an exclusion in its policy, and therefore was estopped from doing so later (see, Matter of Worchester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185; Sphere Drake Ins. v. Block, 265 A.D.2d 78; Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Boucher, 238 A.D.2d 414).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Utica Mutual Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Utica Mutual Insurance v. CNA Insurance

Case Details

Full title:UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant-respondent, v. CNA INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 398