You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

White v. Freedman

Citations: 227 A.D.2d 470; 643 N.Y.S.2d 160; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 13, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company against an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which required Graphic Arts to defend defendants third-party plaintiffs in a personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit was initiated by employees of the defendants' tenants, who claimed injuries due to exposure to harmful fumes and gases at the workplace. The defendants sought defense and indemnification under a liability insurance policy issued by Graphic Arts. However, Graphic Arts denied coverage based on a pollution exclusion clause that specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from pollutants, including vapors and fumes. The appellate court found that the pollution exclusion clause was unambiguous and applicable to the claims, reversing the lower court's order and granting summary judgment in favor of Graphic Arts. Consequently, Graphic Arts was not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants, thus releasing the insurer from any duty related to the claims described in the main action.

Legal Issues Addressed

Duty to Defend under Liability Insurance Policies

Application: The court determined that Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company has no duty to defend the defendants third-party plaintiffs due to the specific terms of the pollution exclusion clause in the insurance policy.

Reasoning: The appellate court reverses this order... concluding that the company has no obligation to defend the defendants third-party plaintiffs.

Interpretation of Pollution Exclusion Clauses

Application: The pollution exclusion clause was found to be clear and unambiguous, thereby excluding coverage for injuries caused by noxious fumes and chemical gases, which directly related to the claims in the main action.

Reasoning: The court determined that the pollution exclusion was unambiguous and applicable, thereby establishing that Graphic Arts was not obligated to provide a defense or indemnification in the main action.