213 F. Supp. 3d 594
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- A fatal pedestrian-truck collision killed Laurence Renard; Mastroluca sued multiple contractors and truck companies alleging the dump truck was on a prohibited street and defendants’ supervision/route decisions caused the death.
- Mount Vernon issued a CGL policy to named insured Munoz for 11/11/2010–11/11/2011; policy contains an Auto Exclusion barring coverage for bodily injury arising out of ownership/use/entrustment of any auto.
- The policy also contained a Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement covering parties with a written contract requiring additional-insured status for liability caused in whole or in part by Munoz’s acts in performing "your work." No written contracts proving additional-insured status were produced.
- Mount Vernon received notice of the claim in February 2011, investigated (including a March 3, 2011 interview), and issued a disclaimer on March 15, 2011 citing the Auto Exclusion; later disclaimers followed after suit was filed.
- Mount Vernon sued for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify under the Policy; motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any defendants other than Munoz are additional insureds under the Policy | Only parties with a written contract requiring additional-insured status qualify; no such contracts exist | Defendants contend some agreements/leases create triable issues about additional-insured status | Held: No additional insureds proved; Munoz is the sole covered party |
| Whether Mount Vernon owes a duty to defend Munoz in the Underlying Action | Auto Exclusion applies because the complaint alleges the injury arose from operation/ownership/entrustment of an insured vehicle | Defendants argue theories of liability (route-setting, supervision, agency) place claims outside the Auto Exclusion; factual disputes as to ownership/employment preclude summary judgment | Held: Duty to defend is barred by the Auto Exclusion; allegations fall solely and entirely within the exclusion |
| Whether Mount Vernon must indemnify Munoz for any liability in the Underlying Action | Plaintiff argues Auto Exclusion may bar indemnity as well | Defendants note factual questions (who owned the truck, who employed the driver) might make indemnity appropriate | Held: Indemnity issue not ripe—must await resolution of underlying facts and liability in the pending tort action |
| Whether Mount Vernon’s disclaimer was untimely and estops denial of coverage | Plaintiff contends disclaimer followed a reasonable investigation and was timely | Defendants claim delay (timeline disputes) renders disclaimer untimely and estops denial | Held: Disclaimer to Munoz was timely as a matter of law given the investigation and interview; no estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Century 21, Inc. v. Diamond State Ins. Co., 442 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (insurer duty to defend measured by pleadings; construed liberally)
- Servidone Constr. Corp. v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y.2d 419 (N.Y.) (distinguishing duty to defend from duty to indemnify)
- Webster ex rel. Webster v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 209 (2d Cir.) (timeliness of disclaimer measured from when insurer had sufficient information)