AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

CHARLES F. EVANS COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Charles F. Evans Company, an insured, seeks a declaration that defendant Zurich Insurance Company must defend it in an underlying action.

Damon G. Douglas Company, a general contractor, subcontracted with Evans to do roofing work for a building constructed for BASF Corporation. Douglas sued BASF claiming the remaining amounts due under the construction contract. BASF, in turn, counterclaimed against Douglas, alleging that the roofing around the skylights in the new building was improperly installed and leaked. Douglas then brought a third-party action for indemnity and contribution against Evans. BASF's counterclaim in the underlying action sought damages for breach of the construction contract, in part incurred because of bodily injury. Specifically, BASF alleged that due to the leaking roof, its employees "slipped and fell in puddles * * * and were injured," and "[a]s a result thereof, BASF has been forced to incur expenses, in the form of lost-time and workers' compensation claims, and has thereby been damaged."

The policy, providing coverage for "those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of `bodily injury'," is at least ambiguous as to whether the claims in question are covered, and must be construed against the insurer. The claims arising from slip-and-fall injuries thus allege "facts or grounds which bring the action within the protection purchased," and trigger Zurich's duty to defend Evans (Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 310; see, Schwab v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 947, 949; International Paper Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 35 N.Y.2d 322, 325-326). We also reject Zurich's contention that the alleged slip-and-falls were not "occurrences" (defined to include an "accident") within the meaning of its policy.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CHARLES F. EVANS COMPANY v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO
(May 11, 2000)