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.
Castillo v. Prince Plaza, LLC
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 6226Docket: 2014-07128ON MOTION
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 26, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Castillo v. Prince Plaza, LLC, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York addressed a motion by Western Heritage Insurance Company, which sought reargument of a previous decision from September 28, 2016. The court granted the motion to the extent of recalling and vacating the earlier decision. The key issue involved a third-party action concerning the obligation of Western Heritage Insurance Company to defend and indemnify King's Construction Supplies, LLC in a related lawsuit. The Supreme Court's order dated May 27, 2014, had denied Western Heritage's motion for summary judgment against the third-party complaint and granted King's Construction's cross-motion for a declaration of coverage. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, concluding that Western Heritage is obligated to defend King's Construction and, upon a liability determination, to indemnify it for noncontractual claims in the second third-party action. The court emphasized that, when determining insurance coverage disputes, the language of the policy is paramount, with the insurer needing to prove exclusion applicability and the insured needing to establish coverage existence. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment reflecting these obligations. The insured has the responsibility to prove that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies when coverage is in question, as established in Borg-Warner Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. In interpreting insurance policies, any ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the insured, supported by case law such as Kassapidis v Maryland Cas. Co. and others. The "apartments" exception to the "Habitational Construction" exclusion is deemed ambiguous regarding coverage for the specific structure involved. Consequently, the Supreme Court appropriately denied Western Heritage Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint and granted King's Construction's cross motion for summary judgment. This ruling mandates that Western Heritage must defend King's Construction in the second third-party action and, contingent on a liability determination, indemnify King's Construction for noncontractual claims. Western Heritage's additional arguments presented for the first time in reply papers were not considered. The case is to be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a judgment declaring these obligations.