Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Skanska USA Building Inc.'s appeal against a New York County Supreme Court decision, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that Harleysville Insurance Company had a duty to defend Skanska and its indemnitees in an underlying action. The primary legal issue centered on the applicability of a wrap-up exclusion in Harleysville's insurance policy, which precluded coverage for bodily injury arising from ongoing operations under a consolidated wrap-up insurance program. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the exclusion applied because the incident arose from Fred Geller Electrical, Inc.'s operations, the named insured under the policy. The court further rejected Skanska's argument that Geller needed to be enrolled in the wrap-up program for the exclusion to be effective. However, a factual dispute regarding the timeliness of Harleysville's disclaimer of coverage remained unresolved, necessitating further examination. The appellate court's decision, entered on April 11, 2023, upheld the denial of Skanska's motion for partial summary judgment, emphasizing the applicability of the wrap-up exclusion and the outstanding issues related to the timing of the coverage disclaimer.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion in Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the wrap-up exclusion to preclude coverage for Skanska, holding that the exclusion applied as it pertained to ongoing operations under a consolidated wrap-up insurance program.
Reasoning: The wrap-up exclusion states that coverage does not apply to bodily injury arising from ongoing operations when a consolidated wrap-up insurance program is provided by the prime contractor or project manager of the construction project involved.
Interpretation of Named Insured in Insurance Policiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The policy defined 'you' and 'your' as referring to Fred Geller Electrical, Inc., the named insured, thereby triggering the wrap-up exclusion for incidents arising from Geller's operations.
Reasoning: The policy defined 'you' and 'your' as referring to Fred Geller Electrical, Inc., the named insured.
Timeliness of Disclaimers in Insurance Coveragesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that a factual dispute remained regarding whether Harleysville timely disclaimed coverage, as the existence of the wrap-up program was not readily apparent.
Reasoning: Skanska did not demonstrate that the existence of the wrap-up program was readily apparent to Harleysville, and the defendants raised factual issues about the need for an investigation and the reasonableness of the delay in denying coverage.