Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 11-00156
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 17, 2011; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, upheld a lower court's order and judgment in favor of Merchants Mutual Insurance Company against the New York State Insurance Fund. The case arose from a wrongful death action involving Jerrick Waterproofing Co. Inc., which held an insurance policy from the defendant that provided unlimited employer’s liability coverage. The plaintiff sought to recover funds due to the defendant's alleged failure to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing for a construction worker's fatal fall while working on a site managed by T&G Contracting, Inc. The wrongful death case settled for approximately $2.2 million, with contributions from all involved parties. The appellate court affirmed that the defendant was required to provide unlimited coverage despite an exclusion in its policy pertaining to liability assumed under a contract. The court found that T&G's common-law indemnification claim against Jerrick Waterproofing remained viable, which necessitated coverage under the defendant's policy. Additionally, the court rejected the defendant's argument that its policy limit for bodily injury, set at $100,000 on the declarations page of the plaintiff’s excess insurance policy, limited its coverage. It ruled that the policy language applicable to employees not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law did not pertain to this case, thus affirming that the defendant was obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing. Consequently, the plaintiff's obligation for excess coverage was not triggered. The judgment awarded the plaintiff $600,000 in damages.