890 F. Supp. 2d 315
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- This case arises from the March 15, 2008 crane collapse at 303 East 51st Street in Manhattan, killing seven and injuring many.
- RSUI seeks a declaratory judgment that the Policy does not cover claims arising from the Accident.
- RCG and E51 counterclaim that the Policy covers liability; they seek coverage under the Policy’s exceptions.
- RSUI’s policy includes a Residential Work Exclusion with an Exception for work on commercial space in mixed-use buildings.
- The dispute centers on whether 303 East 51st is a mixed-use building and whether the Exception to the Exclusion applies to the crane attachment site on the third floor.
- The court grants RSUI’s motion for summary judgment, finding the Exclusion applies and the Exception does not, thereby denying coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Exclusion applicable to the Accident as to a residential project? | RSUI: building is residential; Exclusion applies. | RCG/E51: building contains commercial/community space, not purely residential. | Yes, Exclusion applies to a mixed-use building under the Policy. |
| If the Exclusion applies, does the Exception to the Exclusion extend coverage? | RSUI: Exception does not apply because crane work was not on commercial space. | RCG/E51: Third-floor attachment constitutes commercial space; Exception should apply. | No; the Exception does not apply given lack of evidence that crane work occurred in commercial space. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks Real Estate Purchasing Grp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2006) (interpretation of contract language and ambiguity in insurance terms)
- White v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 264 (N.Y. 2007) (unambiguous policy terms enforced as written; extrinsic evidence for ambiguity)
- Morgan Stanley Grp. Inc. v. New England Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2000) (burden on insurer to show exclusion applies when coverage is established)
- Inc. Vill. of Cedarhurst v. Hanover Ins. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1996) (exclusions construed narrowly and strictly; contra proferentem principle)
- National case in the opinion: Parks Real Estate Purchasing Grp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 472 F.3d 33, 472 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2006) (interpretation of contract terms and ambiguous language in insurance contracts)
- White v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 264 (N.Y. 2007) (unambiguous provisions given plain meaning; extrinsic evidence for ambiguities)