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.
Brannigan v. Christie Overhead Door
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 2961; 149 A.D.3d 894; 52 N.Y.S.3d 423Docket: 2015-10588
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 19, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case Brannigan v. Christie Overhead Door (2017 NY Slip Op 02961), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's order requiring Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company to defend the third-party plaintiffs, James A. Brannigan and his parents, in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, James A. Brannigan, sustained injuries at his parents' home and named them as defendants, prompting them to file a third-party action against their insurer, Nationwide, for a defense obligation. Nationwide had previously declined to defend based on an exclusion related to individuals residing at the insured premises, as the plaintiff claimed to reside there. After a series of motions and an amendment to the complaint to remove the residence allegation, the Supreme Court initially denied Nationwide's motion and the third-party plaintiffs' request for summary judgment. Following a cross-motion for renewal, the court reversed its earlier decision and ruled that Nationwide is indeed obligated to defend the third-party plaintiffs in the main action. Nationwide subsequently appealed this decision. A motion for leave to renew under CPLR 2221(e) requires new facts not previously presented that would alter the prior determination, along with a reasonable justification for not including those facts earlier. The May 21, 2014 order allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint materially impacted the issues in the third-party action. An insurer's duty to defend its insured is broad, triggered whenever a complaint suggests a reasonable possibility of coverage, regardless of external facts that may imply the claim is without merit. The lack of the Supreme Court's amendment order during the third-party plaintiffs' original cross motion justified their failure to present it initially. The amendment shifted the incident outside of Nationwide's policy exclusion, indicating a reasonable possibility of coverage. Consequently, the third-party plaintiffs demonstrated that the new facts warranted a change in the prior ruling regarding Nationwide's duty to defend. The Supreme Court acted within its discretion in granting their cross motion for leave to renew. Nationwide did not raise a triable issue of fact against the third-party plaintiffs' showing of the duty to defend, and its other arguments lacked merit. Upon renewal, the Supreme Court correctly granted the third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring Nationwide's obligation to defend them. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment affirming Nationwide's duty to defend.