Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Admiral Insurance Company
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; and theCourt further ORDERS tha t Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that Admiral's policy applies on a primary basis as compared to Liberty's policy for the defendants State University Construction Fund, Christa Constr uction, LLC, and Schenectady Steel Co. Inc. in the actions entitled Kevin Harrington v. State University Construction Fund, Christa Construction, LLC, and Schenectady Steel Co. Inc., Index No. 244917/13, pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rensselaer, and respondents The State of New York and State University of New York College at Oneonta in the action entitled Kevin Harrington v. The State of New York and State University of New York College at Oneonta, Claim No. 13- 155, in the State of New York Court of Claims; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's Counterclaim is DISMISSED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 4/17/15. (ban)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
3:14-CV-949
(MAD/DEP)
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
JAFFE, ASHER LAW FIRM
600 Third Avenue
9th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID R. SHYER, ESQ.
MARSHALL T. POTASHNER, ESQ.
COUGHLIN, DUFFY LAW FIRM
88 Pine Street
5th Floor
Wall Street Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Attorneys for Defendant
JUSTIN N. KINNEY, ESQ.
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff Liberty Insurance Corporation ("Liberty") commenced this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), alleging that Defendant Admiral Insurance Company
("Admiral") has violated its liability insurance coverage obligations. See Dkt. No. 1.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 16.
II. BACKGROUND
A.
The Underlying Actions
On or about October 21, 2013, Kevin Harrington ("Harrington") commenced an action
entitled Kevin Harrington v. State University Construction Fund, Christa Construction, LLC, and
Schenectady Steel Co. Inc., Index No. 244917, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Rensselaer. Dkt. No. 14-9 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 14-16 at 1. Harrington commenced a
separate action in the New York Court of Claims, entitled Kevin Harrington v. The State of New
York and State University of New York College at Oneonta, Claim No. 13-155. Dkt. No. 14-10 at
2; see also Dkt. No. 14-16 at 2. Admiral and Liberty seek a declaratory judgment determining
whether Liberty has a co-primary duty to defend and indemnify Christa Construction LLC
("Christa"), the State University of New York Construction Fund ("the Fund"), the State of New
York ("the State"), and the State University of New York College at Oneonta ("SUNY Oneonta")
in Harrington's State Court and Court of Claims actions ("the underlying actions"), by virtue of an
endorsement in Liberty's Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policy. See Dkt. No. 10 at 2; see
also Dkt. No. 14-3 at 6-7.
B.
The Contracts
In an agreement dated November 8, 2011, the Fund hired Christa as the general contractor
for the rehabilitation of Fitzelle Hall, a building at SUNY Oneonta ("the project"). Dkt. No. 1614 at 2. On August 10, 2012, Christa hired Schenectady Steel Co. Inc. ("Schenectady") as a
subcontractor on the project pursuant to a written agreement (the "Schenectady Contract"). Dkt.
No. 16-17 at 2. In turn, Schenectady hired Capital Construction Management Services LLC
("Capital") as a sub-subcontractor on the project (the "Capital Subcontract"). Dkt. No. 16-16 at 2.
Schenectady obtained CGL insurance coverage from Liberty, and Capital obtained CGL
insurance coverage from Admiral. See Dkt. Nos. 14-2, 14-8.
2
1. The Capital Subcontract
The Capital Subcontract contains the following provision:
ARTICLE 13
INSURANCE AND BONDS
§ 13.1 The Subcontractor shall purchase and maintain insurance of
the following types of coverage and limits of liability as will protect
the Subcontractor from claims that may arise out of, or result from,
the Subcontractor's operations and completed operations under the
Subcontract:
Type of insurance
Submit insurance prior to commencement of work at job site.
Insurance shall be in accordance with Requirements of the Prime
Contract and Have the following Wording:
SSCI Job # K1203-Christa Job#2011-27 - Contract #2011127010 - Schenectady Steel Co. Inc., Christa Construction, State
University Construction Fund (SUCF), The State of New York, The
State University of New York, their trustees, officers agents or
employees, Lomanaco & Pitts Architects are to be named additional
insureds. This insurance shall apply as primary insurance, on a
noncontributory basis before any other insurance or self insurance,
including any deductible maintained by or provided to, the
additional insureds. Waiver of Subrogation is required. There shall
be no labor law exclusion.
Dkt. No. 16-16 at 14-15.
2. Admiral's Policy
Admiral issued Capital a CGL policy, No. CA000017326-01, with a policy period from
January 10, 2013 to January 10, 2014 ("the Admiral Policy"). See Dkt. No. 14-8 at 3-4. The
Admiral Policy contains the following provision:
4.
Other Insurance
If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the
insured for a loss we cover under Coverages A or B of this
Coverage Part, our obligations are limited as follows:
a.
Primary Insurance
3
This insurance is primary except when Paragraph b. below
applies. If this insurance is primary, our obligations are not
affected unless any of the other insurance is also primary.
Then, we will share with all that other insurance by the
method described in Paragraph c. below.
b.
Excess Insurance
(1) This insurance is excess over:
....
(b) Any other primary insurance available to you covering
liability for damages arising out of the premises or
operations, or the products and completed operations, for
which you have been added as an additional insured by
attachment of an endorsement.
Id. at 18. The Admiral Policy also contains a "PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTING
INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT[,]" which is set out below:
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
Schedule
Any person or organization qualifying as an insured under an
Additional Insured-Owners, Lessees or Contractor's endorsement Scheduled Person or Organization CG2010 0704 attached to this
policy, or Additional Insured-Owners, Lessees or Contractors
endorsement - Completed Operations CG2037 0704, attached to
this policy.
It is agreed that Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG
00 01 Section IV paragraphs 4.b. and 4.c. do not apply with respect
to other valid and collectible Commercial General Liability
insurance, whether primary or excess, available to the person or
organization shown in the Schedule and:
1)
Who is an insured under an Additional InsuredOwners, Lessees or Contractors endorsement
attached to this policy; and
2)
Who requires by specific written contract that this
insurance is to be primary and/or non-contributory to
other valid and collectible insurance available to that
person or organization.
4
This endorsement does not change the scope of coverage provided
to the person or organization by any Additional Insured
endorsement.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
Id. at 38.
In a January 16, 2014 letter, Admiral acknowledged its duty to defend Christa, the Fund,
the State, and SUNY Oneonta in the underlying actions:
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Fund, Schenectady
and Christa potentially qualify as insureds under the Admiral Policy
by virtue of the Additional Insured Endorsement recited [below].
Based on the allegations of the Claim, the State and SUNY Oneonta
potentially qualify as insureds under the Admiral Policy by virtue of
that endorsement. Admiral therefore agrees to defendant the Fund,
Schenectady and Christa in the State Court Action, and agrees to
defend the State and SUNY Oneonta in the Court of Claims Action,
from the respective dates of tender of the Complaint and Claim,
subject to the terms, conditions and limits of the Admiral Policy.
Dkt. No. 14-12 at 6. The additional insured endorsement referenced by Admiral in the January
16, 2014 letter includes the following relevant provision:
A.
Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as
an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown
in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily
injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising
injury" caused, in whole or in part, by:
1.
Your acts or omissions; or
2.
The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing operations for the
additional insured(s) . . . .
Dkt. No. 14-8 at 23. The schedule in the additional insured endorsement provides that:
ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THAT IS AN OWNER OF
REAL PROPERTY OR PERSONAL PROPERTY ON WHICH
YOU ARE PERFORMING ONGOING OPERATIONS, OR A
CONTRACTOR ON WHOSE BEHALF YOU ARE
PERFORMING ONGOING OPERATIONS, BUT ONLY IF
COVERAGE AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IS REQUIRED
5
BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT OR WRITTEN AGREEMENT
THAT IS AN "INSURED CONTRACT", AND PROVIDED THAT
THE "BODILY INJURY", "PROPERTY DAMAGE" OR
"PERSONAL & ADVERTISING INJURY" FIRST OCCURS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT OR
AGREEMENT.
Id.
3. Liberty's Policy
Liberty issued a CGL policy to Schenectady, effective from January 1, 2013 to January 1,
2014 ("the Liberty Policy"). Dkt. No. 14-2 at 3. Attached to the Liberty Policy is an endorsement
entitled "LIBERTY DirectSolutions for Fabricated Metals Manufacturers" ("the Liberty
Endorsement"), which includes this item:
Item 11. EXPANDED BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED
AND WAIVER OF SUBROGATION (FOR INSTALLATION
EXPOSURES)
A.
Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as
an insured any person or organization to whom you are
obligated by a written agreement to procure additional
insured coverage, provided that:
....
That person or organization shall be referred to as the
additional insured.
....
D.
Other Insurance
The insurance provided by this endorsement applies only to
coverages and limits of insurance required by written
agreement, but in no event exceeds either the scope of
coverage or the limits of insurance available within this
policy.
This insurance shall be excess over any other insurance
available to the additional insured, whether such insurance
6
is on an excess, contingent or primary basis, unless the
written agreement with you requires that the insurance
provided for the additional insured be primary concurrent or
primary non-contributory, in comparison to the additional
insured's own policy or policies.
To the extent that the additional insured has the right to
pursue any other insurance carrier for coverage, including a
defense, we shall share that right with the additional insured.
Dkt. No. 14-3 at 6-7.
4. The Schenectady Contract (Insurance Exhibit C)
The Schenectady Contract included the following exhibit:
INSURANCE EXHIBIT C
....
3. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
(1993 Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) CG 00 01 or its
equivalent)
3.1
Subcontractors and sub-subcontractors shall provide, at their
own expense, Commercial General Liability Insurance on an
"occurrence basis", including insurance for premises,
operations, independent contractors, products-completed
operations, and contractual liability. . . .
3.2
The policy required by Paragraph 3.1 shall be endorsed to
name the following persons or entities as additional
insureds:
‚
Christa Construction, LLC,
‚
State University College at Oneonta
‚
State University Construction Fund
‚
State University of New York . . . .
Subcontractor shall utilize additional insured endorsement form CG
2010 (Form B) - Additional Insured - Owners, Lessees or
Contractors, or its equivalent and will show evidence of
endorsement on the face of the certificate of insurance.
Coverage for additional insureds shall apply on a primary and noncontributing basis before any other insurance or self insurance,
7
including any deductable maintained or provided by the additional
insureds.
....
6. Miscellaneous
....
6.4
All insurance policies provided pursuant to this Exhibit shall
be primary and non-contributing with, and not in excess of,
any other insurance available to Christa Construction, LLC
or any of the other persons or entities identified in paragraph
3.2 above.
Dkt. No. 16-17 at 22.
C.
The Current Dispute
Admiral's counsel summarized the issue before the Court as follows:
There is no dispute that the underlying suits allege claims for which
Admiral and Liberty owe a duty to defend Schenectady, Christa, the
Fund, the State, and SUNY-Oneonta. There is also no dispute that
Admiral's coverage for Schenectady for the underlying suits is
primary to Liberty's coverage for Schenectady. The key dispute
herein concerns the priority of coverage between Liberty and
Admiral for Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY-Oneonta. The
issue is whether one carrier owes the sole primary duty to defend or
both carriers owe a co-primary duty to defend these four entities.
Dkt. No. 10 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 14-16 at 8.
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of review
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no
genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue
warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43
F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the
court "cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried." Id. at
8
36-37 (quotation and other citation omitted). Moreover, it is well-settled that a party opposing a
motion for summary judgment may not simply rely on the assertions in its pleading. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e)).
In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the
court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party. See Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986)) (other citations omitted). Where the non-movant either does not respond to the
motion or fails to dispute the movant's statement of material facts, the court may not rely solely
on the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement; rather, the court must be satisfied that the citations to
evidence in the record support the movant's assertions. See Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d
139, 143 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion
for summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding functions of the judicial process by
substituting convenience for facts").
B.
Analysis
As set out in Admiral's letter, the only issue before the Court is whether Liberty has a co-
primary duty to defend Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY Oneonta in the underlying actions.
See Dkt. No. 10 at 2.
Under New York law, "an insurance policy which . . . contemplates
contribution with other . . . policies or does not by the language
used negate that possibility must contribute ratably with a similar
policy, but must be exhausted before a policy which . . . manifests
that it is intended to be excess over other excess policies."
Chichkina v. Cohen, 172 F.3d 37, 1998 WL 961131, *1 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting State Farm Fire
& Cas. Co. v. LiMauro, 65 N.Y.2d 369, 375-76 (1985)); see also Endurance Am. Specialty Ins.
Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 46 F. Supp. 3d 398, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
9
Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 25 A.D.3d. 658, 662 (2nd Dep't 2006) (citing cases). However,
"the 'general rule of ratable contribution is inapplicable . . . if it "would effectively deny and
clearly distort the plain meaning of the terms of the policies."'" Endurance Am. Specialty Ins.
Co., 46 F. Supp. 3d at 426 (citations omitted). "The purpose of this exception to the general rule,
referred to as the 'Lumbermens exception,' is to preserve all parties' bargained-for contractual
expectations." Id. at 427 (citing Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 651,
655 (1980)). New York courts "construe the policy in a way that affords a fair meaning to all of
the language employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and
effect." Raymond Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 5 N.Y.3d 157, 162 (2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, Item 11 in the Liberty Endorsement ("Item 11") includes an other insurance
provision that states that the Liberty Policy:
shall be excess over any other insurance available to the additional
insured, whether such insurance is on an excess, contingent or
primary basis, unless the written agreement with you requires that
the insurance provided for the additional insured be primary
concurrent or primary non-contributory, in comparison to the
additional insured's own policy or policies.
Dkt. No. 14-3 at 7 (emphasis added). This provision thus provides that the Liberty Policy is
excess as to the additional insureds unless an exception is triggered by a written agreement as
described. David Rossie, a senior underwriter for Liberty, declared in an affidavit submitted with
Liberty's summary judgment motion that "[t]he Liberty Policy defines the term 'you' as 'the
Named Insured set forth in the Declarations and any other entity qualifying as a Named Insured.'
This refers only to Schenectady, but not any additional insureds." Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2. Item 11
begins by referencing "a written agreement to procure additional insured coverage," and
subsequently refers to "the written agreement[.]" Dkt. No. 14-3 at 6-7. Accordingly, the
10
language "the written agreement with you" in the Liberty Policy refers to a written agreement by
Schenectady to procure additional insurance coverage. Id. The Schenectady contract, where
Schenectady agreed to obtain coverage for Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY Oneonta as
additional insureds, triggered the exception in the other insurance provision of Item 11, because
Exhibit C of the Schenectady contract specifies that Schenectady's coverage for the additional
insureds will be on a primary and non-contributing basis. Dkt. No. 16-17 at 22.
However, Liberty asserts that the phrase "in comparison to the additional insured's own
policy or policies" ("the 'in comparison' clause"), means that when the exception is triggered, the
Liberty Policy would only be primary to the additional insureds' own policies. Dkt. No. 14-15 at
11. Liberty defines "own policies" as policies where the additional insureds under the Liberty
Policy are named insureds. Id. Under Liberty's interpretation, Liberty could be a primary insurer
as to "the Fund's, C[h]rista's, the State's, or SUNY's own policies[,]" but not as to Capital's policy
with Admiral, where Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY Oneonta are all additional insureds.
Dkt. No. 14-8 at 3; Dkt. No. 14-3 at 6.
Admiral argues that the "in comparison" clause is "part of the description of what
Schenectady's contract must require, not the policies to which the Liberty Policy would be
excess." Dkt. No. 16-2 at 20. Further, Admiral contends that "[s]o long as those circumstances
negating the excess other insurance language exist, the Liberty Policy is primary . . . regardless of
the nature of the other policy(ies) involved." Dkt. No. 23 at 8.
"'In determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the
policy. We construe the policy in a way that afford a fair meaning to all of the language
employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and effect.'"
Raymond Corp., 5 N.Y.3d at 162 (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 98
11
N.Y.2d 208, 221-22 (2002)). The Court finds that Admiral's interpretation of the Item 11 other
insurance provision would render the "in comparison" clause superfluous, because Liberty would
have a primary duty to defend and indemnify in any instance where a written agreement required
that the policy holder's insurance would be primary non-contributory as to the additional insureds'
own policy. If Liberty's policy was primary as to all policies available to the additional insured
when the exception applied, then the "in comparison" clause would serve no purpose.
Accordingly, Admiral's interpretation does not afford effect to each clause within Item 11, and is
therefore not a reasonable interpretation.
On the other hand, Liberty's interpretation does not disregard or "fail[] to give effect to
that portion of the Liberty Policy Other Insurance provision stating 'unless the written agreement
with you requires that the insurance provided for the additional insured[s] be primary concurrent
or primary non-contributory" ("the 'unless' clause"), as Admiral argues. Dkt. No. 23 at 8. If the
Liberty Policy additional insureds were named insureds under the Admiral Policy, Liberty would
be a co-primary insurer with Admiral, and the "unless" clause would give Liberty a duty to
defend and indemnify the named insured. However, as Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY
Oneonta are all additional insureds on the Admiral Policy, the "in comparison" clause functions
as a limitation on the "unless" clause, leaving Liberty as the excess insurer, and Admiral as the
sole primary insurer.1
The Court does not therefore find the "in comparison" clause ambiguous. However,
even if it were ambiguous, "the rule [that] requires . . . an ambiguous policy to be construed
against the insurer" is not applicable, because "New York courts have specifically stated that the
rule 'is not applicable in a contest between two insurance companies.'" U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gen.
Reinsurance Corp., 949 F.2d 569, 573 (2d. Cir. 1992) (quoting Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers'
Liability Assurance Corp., 85 A.D.2d 880, 881 (4th Dep't 1981), aff'd, 57 N.Y.2d 872 (1982)).
1
12
Additionally, this interpretation best serves the intent of the Admiral and Liberty Policies.
See Parks Real Estate Purchasing Group v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 33, 42 (2d
Cir. 2006) ("When a dispute arises involving the terms of an insurance contract, New York
insurance law provides that 'an insurance contract is interpreted to give effect to the intent of the
parties as expressed in the clear language of the contract.'") (citations omitted). Admiral's
"PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTING INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT" is evidence of Admiral's
intent to provide the sole primary insurance coverage for Christa, the Fund, the State, and SUNY
Oneonta as additional insureds. See Dkt. No. 14-8 at 38. In contrast, the Liberty Endorsement
evidences Liberty and Schenectady's intent that Liberty be an excess insurer as to the additional
insureds, except in comparison to their own policies. See Dkt. No. 14-3 at 7. Further, the Capital
Subcontract shows Schenectady's and Capital's intent to make Admiral's policy primary "on a
noncontributory basis before any other insurance." Dkt. No. 16-16 at 15. If the Court declared
Admiral and Liberty co-primary insurers for these additional insureds, it would negate the
"bargained-for contractual expectation[]" that the endorsements signified. Endurance Am.
Specialty Ins. Co., 46 F. Supp. 3d at 427.
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties's submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court
further
13
ORDERS that Admiral's policy applies on a primary basis as compared to Liberty's policy
for the defendants State University Construction Fund, Christa Construction, LLC, and
Schenectady Steel Co. Inc. in the actions entitled Kevin Harrington v. State University
Construction Fund, Christa Construction, LLC, and Schenectady Steel Co. Inc., Index No.
244917/13, pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rensselaer, and
respondents The State of New York and State University of New York College at Oneonta in the
action entitled Kevin Harrington v. The State of New York and State University of New York
College at Oneonta, Claim No. 13-155, in the State of New York Court of Claims; and the Court
further
ORDERS that Defendant's Counterclaim is DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2015
Albany, New York
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?