throbber
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02m2018 11:48 AM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO. 439
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`
`IND
`EX NO.
`652471/2011
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
` VYSC
`
` 4|IV-v .D
` 3F:
`
`02/14/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`NEW YORK
`FILED:
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`45
`NO.
`|F ILE D : NEW YORK
`DOC. NO .
`NYSCEF
`430
`SUPREME
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02/07/2018
`
`03:30
`
`PM)
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`10:48
`
`ANG
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`NO.
`INDEX
`153250/20
`5
`
`RECEIVED
`INDEX
`
`02/0_7/20
`NYSCEF:
`652471/2011
`NO.
`
`8
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`NE%'
`NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`COUNTY
`
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`OF NEW YORK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`u J~„
`
`PRESENT:
`
`..
`
`index Number
`RLi
`INSURANCE
`
`: 652471/2011
`COMPANY
`
`.
`c
`Jus#pe
`
`..
`
`NAVIGATORS
`|NSURANCE
`S9quence Number : 006
`CONSOLlDATION/JOlNT
`
`TRIAL
`
`COMPANY
`
`.
`
`1 to,_ were read on this motion tosor
`
`papers, numbered
`The following
`to Show Cause - Afridaylts
`Notice of Motion/Order
`Exhibits
`
`Answering Afigdavits
`Replying Affldavits
`
`-
`
`- Exhibits
`
`PART
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`soTros DATa
`
`MOTl0N 8EQ. NO.
`
`|No(s).
`
`|No(s).
`
`| No(s).
`
`Upon the foregoing
`
`papers,
`
`it
`
`is ordered
`
`that
`
`this motion
`
`is
`
`pic».i'
`
`i»
`
`r
`
`>is
`
`gr»r»»»rc(si»d<
`
`8(»
`
`C'»»~
`
`PA~»ip
`
`g»'r»»si
`
`ua»»~»'»
`
`N<c~
`
`HON, MEUSSA
`
`A. C
`
`NE
`
`5 0
`
`u..
`
`I
`
`r
`
`<
`
`I).~((
`
`„„,.I
`Deted:
`
`, J.S.C.
`
`1. CHECK ONE:
`
`.....................................................................
`
`-"
`2.»L CHECK AS APPROPRIATEi
`
`...........................MOTION
`
`.5. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
`
`;
`
`................................................
`
`Q CASE DISPOSED
`0 DENIED
`tS: O GRANTED
`O SETTLE ORDER
`O DO NOT POST
`
`NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
`O OTHER
`O GRANTED IN PART
`0 8UBMIT ORDER
`O FIDUCIAiÈY APPOINTMENT
`0 REFERENCE
`
`1 of
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`NEW YORK
`(FILED:
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`45
`DOC.
`: NEW YORK
`{FILED
`430
`NYS.CEF DOC. NO.
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`NO.
`153250/2015
`NVRPRR • A7 / A/2./.2.G7 8
`2011
`652471
`NO.
`
`pRPRTURn
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/07
`
`2018
`
`03
`
`: 30
`
`PM|
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`10
`
`: 48
`
`AM)
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`OF NEW YORK:
`IAS PART
`
`OF NEW YORK
`15
`
`RLI
`
`Insurance
`
`Company
`
`v.
`
`Navigators
`
`Insurance
`
`Co. et al
`
`Defendants.
`____________________________X
`
`MELISSA
`
`A. CRANE,
`
`J.
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`652471/2011
`
`This
`
`is an insurance
`
`coverage
`
`dispute
`
`that presents
`
`the question:
`
`when
`
`does
`
`the
`
`primary
`
`insurer's
`
`duty
`
`to defend
`
`end? Given
`
`the current
`
`procedural
`
`posture
`
`of
`
`the
`
`underlying
`
`case,
`
`the policy
`
`language
`
`at
`
`issue,
`
`and the reasonable
`
`expectations
`
`of
`
`the
`
`insured,
`
`the court
`
`holds
`
`that
`
`the primary
`
`insurer's
`
`duty
`
`to defend
`
`ends at
`
`the conclusion
`
`of
`
`the litigation
`
`or upon
`
`settlement.
`
`facts
`
`of
`
`a terrible
`
`tragedy.
`
`of
`
`The
`
`the underlying
`
`case involve
`
`On the morning
`
`February
`
`13, 2008,
`
`Julie
`
`Simon
`
`and her husband
`
`Charlie
`
`were
`
`driving
`
`to a new office
`
`building
`
`in Nassau
`
`County
`
`to hang wallpaper.
`
`Julie was driving.
`
`When
`
`they were
`
`unable
`
`to enter
`
`the building
`
`through
`
`the front
`
`entrance..1ulie
`
`drove
`
`the vehicle
`
`through
`
`an opening
`
`in a fence
`
`onto
`
`the upper
`
`deck
`
`of a parking
`
`garage
`
`that was
`
`still
`
`under
`
`construction,
`
`adjacent
`
`to the building.
`
`When
`
`the vehicle
`
`was about
`
`halfway
`
`between
`
`the opening
`
`gate in the fence
`
`and the leading
`
`edge
`
`of
`
`the parking
`
`deck,
`
`.lulie
`
`lost
`
`control
`
`of
`
`the car. The
`
`vehicle
`
`slid
`
`on ice until
`
`it
`
`reached
`
`the edge
`
`ol'
`of
`
`the
`
`incomplete
`
`parking
`
`deck.
`
`broke
`
`through
`
`the steel
`
`cable
`
`guardrail
`
`system that was
`
`intended
`
`to protect
`
`individual
`
`workers,
`
`and fell approximately
`
`32 feet
`
`to the lower
`
`level
`
`2
`
`of
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`NEW YORK
`FILED:
`DOC.
`NO.
`45
`NYSCEF
`: NEW YORK
`|FILED
`430
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`10:
`
`48
`
`AM)
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/07
`
`/2018
`
`03
`
`: 30
`
`PM)
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`153250/20i.5
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`INDEX
`
`NYSCEF:
`02/07/2018
`652471/2011
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`oi'
`of
`
`the garage.
`
`Charles
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`when
`
`hejumped
`
`out of
`
`the vehicle
`
`before
`
`it
`
`fell.
`
`.lutieJulic
`
`fell with
`
`the vehicle
`
`and died
`
`at
`
`the scene.
`
`Charles
`
`subsequently
`
`commenced
`
`suit
`
`in 2009
`
`against,
`
`among
`
`others,
`
`Granite
`
`the defendant
`
`Lalezarian
`
`LLC (hereinafter
`
`Building
`
`2, 11C
`
`(Granite)
`
`Properties,
`
`Lalezarian),
`
`the property
`
`manager,
`
`Kulka
`
`Construction
`
`Corp.
`
`and Kulka
`
`Contracting.
`
`LLC
`
`(hereinafter
`
`together
`
`the Kulka
`
`defendants).
`
`the construction
`
`manager,
`
`Canatal
`
`Industries.
`
`Inc.
`
`(hereinaller
`
`Canatal),
`
`the structural
`
`steel
`
`subcontractor.
`
`MCLO Structural
`
`Steel Corp.
`
`(hereinafter
`
`MCLO).
`
`the installer
`
`of
`
`the structural
`
`steel.
`
`and FXR
`
`Construction.
`
`Inc..
`
`doing
`
`business
`
`as DEV Construction
`
`(hereinafter
`
`FXR).
`
`the concrete
`
`subcontractor.
`
`The
`
`venue
`
`of
`
`this action
`
`was Nassau
`
`County.
`
`Insurance
`
`On September
`
`8, 201 l. RLI
`
`Company
`
`(RIJ)
`
`filed
`
`this action
`
`(Action
`
`No.
`
`1) against
`
`various
`
`insurance
`
`companies
`
`seeking
`
`additional
`
`insured
`
`coverage
`
`on
`
`behalf
`
`of
`
`its named
`
`insured.
`
`Granite.
`
`Various
`
`parties
`
`to this action
`
`also asserted
`
`cross
`
`elaims,
`
`including
`
`against
`
`the proponent
`
`of
`
`this motion.
`
`State National
`
`Insurance
`
`Company
`
`(State National).
`
`While
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`1 proceeded
`
`through
`
`initial
`
`motion
`
`practice.
`
`the Appellate
`
`Division,
`
`Second
`
`Department
`
`issued
`
`a decision
`
`action
`
`MCLO was
`
`free of
`
`liability
`
`(See Simon
`
`v Granite
`
`B|dg..
`
`114 AD3d
`
`474 (February
`
`13.
`
`2014).
`
`As a result,
`
`the court
`
`in Action
`
`No.
`
`1 extinguished
`
`defendant
`
`Arch
`
`insurance
`
`in the underlying
`
`that defendant
`
`Company's
`
`duty
`
`to defend.
`
`On April
`
`2, 2015,
`
`Scottsdale
`
`Insurance
`
`Company
`
`(Scottsdale)
`
`filed
`
`Action
`
`No. 2
`
`in which
`
`it sought
`
`a declaration
`
`that
`
`it had no duty
`
`to defend
`
`or
`
`indemnify
`
`Granite
`
`or
`
`Kulka
`
`Contracting
`
`in the underlying
`
`case, and that
`
`the Scottsdale
`
`policy
`
`was excess
`
`over
`
`22
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`NEW YORK
`(FILED:
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`45
`DOC.
`NEW YORK
`430
`DOC. NO.
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/07
`
`2018
`
`03
`
`: 30
`
`PM|
`
`(FILED:
`NYSCEF
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`10:
`
`48
`
`AM)
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`153250/2015
`NO.
`
`02/07/2018
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`652471/2011
`INDEX NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`policies
`
`that RLl,
`
`Navigators,
`
`State National
`
`and The
`
`Insurance
`
`Company
`
`of
`
`the State of
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`had issued.
`
`In June
`.lune 2015,
`
`the underlying
`
`action
`
`was tried
`
`before
`
`8 jury.
`
`On June
`.lunc
`
`16. 2015.
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`returned
`
`a verdict
`
`of $9,435.000.
`
`The jury
`
`apportioned
`
`fault:
`
`60% to Ciranite.
`
`30%
`
`I0% to FXR.
`
`On April
`
`the trial
`
`court
`
`action
`
`to Kulka
`
`and
`
`22, 2016,
`
`in the underlying
`
`reduced
`
`the jury
`
`verdict
`
`to $4.967.500.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`the parties
`
`in the underlying
`
`action
`
`stipulated
`
`to reduce
`
`damages
`
`further.
`
`On May
`
`24, 2016. Granite
`
`appealed
`
`the order
`
`in the
`
`underlying
`
`action
`
`that
`
`had denied
`
`its motion
`
`for a judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the verdict,
`
`This
`
`appeal
`
`is pending.
`
`After
`
`the jury's
`
`award.
`
`on August
`
`19. 2016,
`
`State National
`
`tendered
`
`its policy
`
`limits
`
`of $1.000,000,
`
`as well
`
`as 195.913,46
`
`representing
`
`its share
`
`ol'
`of
`
`interest
`
`and costs,
`
`to plaintiff
`
`s counsel
`
`in the underling
`
`action.
`
`On March
`
`I7. 20I7.
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in the underlying
`
`action
`
`entered
`
`judgment
`
`in favor
`
`of plaintiff.
`
`Granite
`
`claims
`
`it
`
`is
`
`also
`
`pressing
`
`an appeal
`
`of
`
`that
`
`judgment.
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the trial
`
`court's
`
`failure
`
`to apply
`
`the
`
`in progress'
`
`doctrine.
`
`(Keane
`
`Aff..
`
`11/18/2016,
`
`at ¶ 6).
`
`There
`
`is no opposition
`
`to that part of State National's
`
`motion
`
`to consolidate
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`1 with
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`2,
`
`for
`
`joint
`
`discovery
`
`and trial.
`
`Moreover,
`
`to consolidate
`
`these
`
`cases
`
`has great merit.
`
`Both
`
`involve
`
`insurance
`
`for
`
`the same
`
`accident.
`
`underlying
`
`Consequently,
`
`judicial
`
`economy
`
`and the risk
`
`of
`
`inconsistent
`
`decisions
`
`favor
`
`consolidation.
`
`It
`
`is also cheaper
`
`for
`
`the parties
`
`to litigate
`
`these
`
`issues
`
`one time,
`
`before
`
`one court.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the court
`
`grants
`
`the motion
`
`to consolidate.
`
`State National
`
`also
`
`seeks
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`in its favor
`
`and a declaration
`
`that
`
`it
`
`has no further
`
`obligation
`
`to pay
`
`statutory
`
`interest
`
`or costs
`
`and no further
`
`obligation
`
`to
`
`defend
`
`or
`
`indemnify
`
`Granite
`
`or any other
`
`defendant
`
`in the underlying
`
`action.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`3
`
`4 of
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`45
`: NEW YORK
`430
`DOC. NO.
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/ 07
`
`/ 2018
`
`03
`
`: 3 0
`
`PMl
`
`IFILED
`NYSCEF
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17
`
`/2018
`
`10
`
`: 4 8 A
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`153250/20L5
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`INDEX
`
`02/07/2018
`NYSCEF:
`652471/2011
`No.
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`undisputed
`
`that State National
`
`is Granite's
`
`primary
`
`insurer
`
`as Granite
`
`is an additional
`
`insured
`
`under
`
`State National's
`
`policy
`
`covering
`
`FXR.
`
`According
`
`to that policy.
`
`State
`
`National's
`
`"duty
`
`to defend
`
`ends when
`
`[it has] used up the applicable
`
`limit
`
`of
`
`insurance
`
`in
`
`the payment
`
`judgments
`
`or
`
`settlements."
`settlements."
`
`(insurance
`
`Exhibit
`
`A to State
`
`ol'
`of
`
`policy,
`
`National's
`
`motion,
`
`section
`
`[1][A][1][a][2)])
`
`State National
`
`points
`
`to the judgment
`
`in the underlying
`
`action
`
`and that
`
`it has
`
`tendered
`
`its policy
`
`limits
`
`to underlying
`
`plaintiff's
`
`counsel
`
`to argue
`
`that
`
`the applicable
`
`limit
`
`of
`
`insurance
`
`has been
`
`"used
`
`up"
`
`to pay
`
`the judgment,
`
`at
`
`least partially.
`
`RLI
`
`contends
`
`that, while
`
`State National's
`
`indemnity
`
`obligation
`
`may
`
`be limited
`
`to liability
`
`$1,000,000,
`
`State National's
`
`duty
`
`to defend
`
`is unlimited
`
`in that State National's
`
`duty
`
`of
`
`to
`
`applies
`
`not
`
`State National
`
`but
`
`to the
`
`defend
`
`just
`
`to the $1,000,000
`
`to which
`
`is exposed,
`
`entire
`
`amount
`
`to which
`
`Granite
`
`is exposed
`
`(i.e. approx.
`
`5 million).
`
`RLI's
`
`position
`
`makes
`
`sense.
`
`It
`
`is undisputed
`
`that State National
`
`provides
`
`insurance
`
`on the primary
`
`level
`
`and has the concomitant
`
`duty
`
`to defend.
`
`A duty
`
`to defend
`
`usually
`
`includes
`
`the duty
`
`to pay
`
`for an appeal
`
`(Brassil
`
`v Maryland
`
`Cas. Co.),
`
`210 NY 235
`
`(1914);
`
`Fidelity
`
`Gen.
`
`Ins Co.,
`
`v Aetna
`
`Ins. Co., 27 AD2d
`
`932 [2d Dep't
`
`1967]
`
`; see also
`
`Associated
`
`Automotive
`
`Inc.
`
`v Acceptance
`
`indem Ins. Co, 705 F Supp
`
`2d 714,
`
`724 [SD
`
`Tex.
`
`an insurer's
`
`2010]["absent
`
`an express
`
`provision
`
`in the policy
`
`to the contrary,
`
`duty
`
`to
`
`defendant
`
`encompasses
`
`a duty
`
`to appeal
`
`an adverse
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`the insured
`
`as long
`
`as there
`
`are reasonable
`
`grounds
`
`to believe
`
`that
`
`the insured's
`
`interest
`
`would
`
`be furthered
`
`appeal"
`by the appeal").
`
`Thus,
`
`a "primary
`
`insurer may
`
`not walk
`
`away
`
`from the insured
`
`by paying
`
`relatively
`
`low limits
`
`into
`
`court
`
`and abandon
`
`the insured
`
`with
`
`a substantial
`
`judgment
`
`simply
`
`because
`
`the cost of appeal
`
`or other
`
`handling
`
`may
`
`be formidable.
`
`The
`
`insured's
`
`4
`
`5 of
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`[F ILED
`: NEW YORK
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`45
`
`02
`
`/ 07
`
`/ 2018
`
`03
`
`: 3 O PM|
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`NO.
`153250/2015
`
`02LQ2dC18
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`652471/2011
`INDEX No.
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`430
`NYSCEF DOC. No,
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/2018
`
`10
`
`: 48
`
`AN]
`
`interests
`
`primary
`
`may
`
`limits"
`
`demand
`
`continued
`
`protection
`
`despite
`
`the threatened
`
`eXhaustion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`(Gross
`I
`
`v Lloyds
`
`of London
`
`lns. Co.,
`
`121 Wisc.
`
`2d 78 (Supreme
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`Wisconsin
`
`1984)
`
`citing
`
`7C J. Appelman,
`
`insurance
`
`Law and Practice,
`
`sec 4684
`
`at 80-82
`
`7 NY3d
`
`137 [2006]).
`
`[Berdal
`
`ed. 1979])
`
`see also, Auto
`
`Ins. Co.,
`
`of Hartford
`
`v Cook,
`
`131,
`
`Consequently,
`
`the primary
`
`insurer's
`
`tender
`
`of policy
`
`limits
`
`to an injured
`
`plaintiff
`
`is insufficient
`
`to discharge
`
`the duty
`
`to defend
`
`where,
`
`in tendering
`
`limits,
`
`the insurer
`
`does
`
`not obtain
`
`some
`
`form of peace
`
`for
`
`its insured
`
`(see California
`
`Cas
`
`ins Co., State
`
`Farm
`
`Mut.
`
`Auto.
`
`Ins. Co.,
`
`185 Ariz
`
`165, 913 P2d 505,
`
`508 (Arizona
`
`Ct of Appeals
`
`1996),
`
`such
`
`from plaintiff
`
`not
`
`to "execute
`
`on the individual
`
`assets
`
`of
`
`the
`
`insured"
`
`as an agreement
`
`(Virginia
`
`Surety
`
`ins. Co.,
`
`v. RSU11ndem.,
`
`Co., 2009 WL 4282198
`
`at
`
`* 7 [D. Ariz.
`
`November
`
`25, 2009]).
`
`Thus,
`
`it can only
`
`be that
`
`the "payment
`
`ofjudgment
`
`or
`
`settlements"
`
`language
`
`in the policy
`
`"contemplates
`
`payment
`
`upon
`
`the conclusion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`litigation
`
`or
`
`termination
`
`of
`
`the claim by
`
`settlement"
`settlement"
`
`(Gross,
`
`121 Wisc.
`
`at 86).'
`
`Here,
`
`State National
`
`does
`
`not argue
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no merit
`
`to Granite's
`
`appeal.
`
`When
`
`it
`
`tendered
`
`limits
`
`plaintiff's
`
`counsel,
`
`it did not obtain
`
`a
`
`its policy
`
`to underlying
`
`release
`
`from plaintiff,
`
`or even
`
`an agreement
`
`not
`
`to proceed
`
`against
`
`Granite's
`
`assets.
`
`In
`
`other words,
`
`it did nothing
`
`to buy Granite
`
`peace.
`
`This
`
`is why
`
`the case State National
`
`primarily
`
`relies
`
`upon,
`
`1n Re 5l"
`
`St. Crane
`
`Collapse
`
`Litig.,
`
`84 AD3d
`
`512,
`
`513 [185 Dep't
`
`2011],
`
`is distinguishable.
`
`There,
`
`the insurer
`
`paid
`
`its policy
`
`limits
`
`to settle
`
`certain
`
`actions
`
`and obtained
`
`releases
`
`for
`
`its insureds.
`
`Here,
`
`there was no release
`
`or end to the litigation
`
`for Granite.
`
`1
`The parties did not cite any New York cases directly
`New York case law either.
`
`on point and research did not reveal direct
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`NEW YORK
`(FILED:
`45
`12Y.S.C.E.E..AO.C.. NO.
`FILED:
`NEW YORK
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`430
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/ 07
`
`/ 2018
`
`03
`
`: 3 0
`
`PM|
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`153250/2015
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`INDEX
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`02/07/2018
`
`No.
`
`652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`Primary
`
`insurance
`
`has the first
`
`duty
`
`to defend
`
`and indemnify.
`
`Because
`
`an excess
`
`carrier
`
`does not have
`
`this
`
`first
`
`duty,
`
`an excess
`
`policy
`
`bears
`
`a comparatively
`
`modest
`
`premium
`
`(see Bovis
`
`Lend
`
`Lease
`
`LMB,
`
`Inc
`
`v Great Am Ins Co.,
`
`53 AD3d
`
`140,
`
`148 (IS
`
`Dep't
`
`2008).
`
`It
`
`therefore
`
`defeats
`
`the reasonable
`
`expectations
`
`of
`
`the insured,
`
`who
`
`has paid
`
`a larger
`
`premium
`
`to obtain
`
`coverage
`
`for
`
`litigation
`
`costs,
`
`to cut off
`
`funding
`
`for
`
`those
`
`costs
`
`post
`
`where
`
`there
`
`is a valid
`
`reason
`
`to appeal
`
`or otherwise
`
`delay
`
`satisfying
`
`the
`
`judgment,
`
`judgment.
`
`ACCORDINGLY,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the court
`
`grants
`
`that part
`
`of State National's
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`consolidate
`
`Scottsdale
`
`ins. Co.,
`
`v RLI
`
`Ins. Co., et al,
`
`Index No.
`
`l 53250/2015
`
`with
`
`this
`
`action
`
`under
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`652471/2011;
`
`and it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the parties
`
`are directed
`
`to serve
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`order
`
`and a copy
`
`of
`
`the new caption
`
`upon
`
`the County
`
`Clerk
`
`within
`
`45 days
`
`from the date of
`
`this
`
`order;
`
`and it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that,
`
`upon
`
`receipt
`
`of
`
`this order
`
`and the copy
`
`of
`
`the new caption,
`
`the
`
`clerk
`
`is directed
`
`to amend
`
`the caption
`
`to reflect
`
`the new caption;
`
`and it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the court
`
`denies
`
`that part of defendant
`
`State National's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`and it
`
`is
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 11:48 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 439
`FILED:
`NEW YORK
`NO.
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`45
`NEW YORK
`DOC. NO.
`430
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`02
`
`/07/2018
`
`03:30
`
`PM|
`
`|FILED:
`NYSCEF
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`01/17/
`
`2018
`
`10:
`
`48
`
`AM|
`
`INDEX NO. 652471/2011
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`INDEX
`153250/2015
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`INDEX
`
`02/07/20
`NYSCEF:
`652471/2011
`NO.
`
`.8
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`01/17/2018
`
`ADJUDGED,
`
`DECLARED
`
`AND DECREED
`
`that State National
`
`still
`
`has an
`
`obligation
`
`to pay
`
`statutory
`
`interest,
`
`costs
`
`and still
`
`has a duty
`
`to defend
`
`Granite
`
`Building
`
`2,
`
`LLC,
`
`Kulka
`
`Contracting,
`
`LLC
`
`and FXR Construction,
`
`Inc
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`the
`
`underlying
`
`action,
`
`Charles
`
`Simon
`
`v Granite
`
`Building
`
`2, LLC,
`
`Index No.
`
`22101-08,
`
`commenced
`
`in Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`Nassau
`
`County.
`
`Dated:
`
`12, 2018
`January
`New York, NY
`
`E N T E R;
`
`Melissa
`
`A. Crane,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`1
`
`7
`
`8 of
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket