Wiley v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company
1:24-cv-00072
N.D.N.Y.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Nicholas Wiley was injured on July 30, 2012, at a construction site while working for DJ Heating & Cooling (the HVAC Subcontractor), when sheetrock placed by Jumpstart Reality LLC's (the Insured) personnel fell on him.
- Jumpstart Reality LLC was insured by Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company (Mesa) under a commercial general liability policy with a $1,000,000 per occurrence limit.
- Wiley obtained a $1,400,000 default judgment against the Insured and its principal, Chicketa Watson, after they failed to appear in the underlying state court action.
- Mesa disclaimed coverage to the Insured and other parties and did not defend the claim.
- Wiley filed this action under N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420 to collect the judgment from Mesa; both parties moved for summary judgment over coverage applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LCCE Exclusion in the policy bars coverage for Wiley's injuries | The exclusion is ambiguous, should be construed in favor of coverage; only bars claims involving contractors in privity with the Insured. | The exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for injuries to any independent contractor, regardless of relationship to Insured. | Exclusion is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage; Mesa must indemnify to policy limits. |
| Whether ambiguity in insurance exclusions must be resolved in insured's favor | Ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured, following New York law. | Policy is clear and unambiguous, so no ambiguity to resolve. | Ambiguity exists, so construed in favor of insured. |
| Whether Mesa waived reliance on LCCE Exclusion | Mesa waived defense by not properly asserting it. | Mesa did not waive exclusion as it was properly raised. | Not explicitly addressed; court proceeds on ambiguity. |
| Whether Mesa must pay prejudgment interest in excess of policy limits | Wiley claims prejudgment interest is owed above policy limits per New York law. | Policy and law do not require payment of interest beyond policy limits. | Court orders further briefing on prejudgment interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality standard for summary judgment)
- LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nomura Asset Cap. Corp., 424 F.3d 195 (contract interpretation under New York law)
- Olin Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 704 F.3d 89 (ambiguity in insurance contracts)