1 No. 110
Westview Associates, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Guaranty National Insurance Company,
Respondent, et al.,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 117
October 26, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Peter Schillinger, for appellants.
Stephen D. Straus, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
Gabriella Humphrey, an infant represented by her parents, brought an
action against the owner of the building in which she resides, and
others, claiming injuries caused by the ingestion of lead paint. The
action presently before us, brought by the building owner and others
("plaintiffs"), seeks a declaration that defendant insurer, Guaranty
National Insurance Company, must defend and indemnify them in that
action.
I
On August 2, 1994, plaintiffs entered into a commercial general
liability insurance policy (the underlying policy) with the defendant
which provided coverage for personal injuries occurring at premises
located at 124 West 72^nd Street in Manhattan during the period June
20, 1994 to June 20, 1995. Paragraph 6 of the rider to that policy
contained a specific exclusion for injuries caused by lead
paint.(1)
On August 4, 1994, plaintiffs purchased an umbrella policy from
defendant covering the same period as the underlying policy. The
umbrella policy contained two types of coverage _- Coverage A and
Coverage B. Coverage A provided excess coverage for damages exceeding
the policy limits of the underlying policy. Coverage A reads in
pertinent part: "We will pay those sums that the 'Insured' becomes
SNIPPETS:
Gabriella Humphrey, an infant represented by her parents, brought an action against the owner
The action presently before us, brought by the building owner and others, seeks a declaration
On August 2, 1994, plaintiffs entered into a commercial general liability insurance policy
On August 4, 1994, plaintiffs purchased an umbrella policy from defendant covering the same
The umbrella policy contained two types of coverage _- Coverage A and Coverage B. Coverage A
Coverage A reads in pertinent part: "We will pay those sums that the 'Insured' becomes
The coverage provisions of the scheduled 'Underlying Policies' are incorporated as part of
the umbrella policy contained a clause specifically excluding coverage for injuries caused by
By separate letters dated October 20, 1995, defendant disclaimed any duty to defend or
Defendant relied on the specific exclusion for lead paint in paragraph 6 of the underlying
Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that defendant had a
In the view of the Appellate Division, the interpretation adopted by Supreme Court "negates
Coverage A contains a provision specifically incorporating the "coverage provisions" of the
Co.,, 87 NY2d 308, 323 ).
Defendant's alternative argument, that the pollution exclusion clause of the umbrella policy
"To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion
If the language of the policy is doubtful or uncertain in its meaning, any ambiguity must be
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and judgment
|
