Published on:

A Kings Workers Compensation Lawyer

A Kings Workers Compensation Lawyer said that, in an action to recover damages for personal injury, and a third-party action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the third-party defendant Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant third-party plaintiff, in the main action, the third-party defendant Insurance Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 25, 2009, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant third-party plaintiff, and the defendant third-party defendant, in the main action.

A Kings Personal Injury Lawyer said that, the third-party defendant Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to the defendant third-party defendant Corporation that contained an exclusion for bodily injury to any employee of any contractor hired by or for any insured arising out of and in the course of the employee’s employment for that contractor. The defendant third-party plaintiff, then hired third-party defendant Corporation to perform work on a construction site by way of a written contract, which required third-party defendant Corporation to name defendant as an additional insured under its insurance policy. The plaintiff commenced this action against them to recover damages for personal injury he allegedly sustained while working on the project for a subcontractor hired by either defendant or third-party defendant Corporation. Defendant Insurance Company denied coverage to third-party defendant Corporation inter alia, on the ground that the employee exclusion precluded coverage. Defendant Insurance Company denied coverage to Fabian, among other things, on the same ground.

Defendant then commenced a third-party action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that defendant Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify it in the main action as an additional insured of the policy issued to third-party defendant Corporation. Defendant Insurance Company moved, among other things, for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify them in the plaintiff’s action. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of defendant’s Insurance Company’s motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to provide such a defense and indemnification.

We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

If you are involved in a similar personal injury case, you will need the help of a Kings Car Accident Attorney and Kings Personal Injury Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Call us now.

Contact Information