The excess insurance policy issued by plaintiff insurer is expressly excess as against all other coverage, including other excess coverage. Defendant's policy is expressly excess only as against primary coverage. The motion court therefore properly concluded that defendant cannot seek contribution from plaintiff via its excess policy (see, State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. LiMauro, 65 N.Y.2d 369, 375-376). In reaching this conclusion, the motion court properly declined to give evidentiary weight to the insurance procurement provisions of the subcontract between plaintiff general contractor and the injured party's employer, since it is the policy provisions that control and not the provisions of the subcontract (see, United States Fidelity Guar. Co. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 208 A.D.2d 1163, 1165).
This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.