EUROTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v QBE INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
January 30, 2015
26 NYS3d 703
Jeffrey K. Oing, J.
The underlying allegations also fall squarely within the “business risk” exclusions of the policy, most pertinently, exclusions 2 (j) (5) and (6), which have been held to bar coverage for damage to property resulting from the contractor’s work (see Fuller, 200 AD2d at 260; Pavarini Constr. Co. v Continental Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 501 [1st Dept 2003]).
While the motion court correctly determined the merits of the complaint in this declaratory judgment action, rather than dismissing the complaint, it should have made a declaration in defendant’s favor (Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 73 NY2d 951, 954 [1989]).
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
