NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
June 15, 2010
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
THE AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,
CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS,
MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 22, 2009, which, inter alia, granted CNA Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment declaring that it does not have a duty to pay MCI's "first dollar" defense costs and denied as moot MCI's motion for summary judgment declaring that CNA has a duty to defend it in numerous landowner actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
The court, in a well-reasoned decision, properly found endorsement 30 in the 1992-95 policies at issue unambiguous in providing that MCI is liable for its own defense costs. Contrary to MCI's contention, the provision is not an exclusion (see Pav-Lak Indus., Inc. v Arch Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 287, 288 ). Absent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. Nor is there a need to resort to contra proferentum, which, in any event, would be inapplicable to this sophisticated policyholder (see Cummins, Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 56 AD3d 288, 290 ).
We have considered MCI's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.