Skip to content

Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v Nautilus Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 00482 [213 AD3d 404]

February 2, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

[*1]

Arch Specialty Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent,

v

Nautilus Insurance Company, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Kelly & Curtis, PLLC, New York (Andrew I. Mandelbaum of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Morrison Mahoney LLP, New York (Kateryna Stupnevich of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence Love, J.), entered on or about January 13, 2022, which denied plaintiff Arch Specialty Insurance Company (Arch)’s motion for summary judgment and defendant Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus)’s cross motion for summary judgment seeking competing declarations as to Nautilus’s coverage obligations to defendant Bordone Contracting, LLC (Bordone) in an underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The additional insured endorsement of the Nautilus policy, issued to its named insured nonparty GSC Services Corporation (GSC), stated that additional insured coverage would be provided only to “any person(s) or organization(s) when you [GSC] and such person(s) or organization(s) have agreed in a written contract or written agreement that such person(s) or organizations(s) be added as an additional insured on your policy.” That language clearly and unambiguously required that the named insured execute a contract with the party seeking coverage as an additional insured ( see Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. , 143 AD3d 146 , 154 [1st Dept 2016], affd 31 NY3d 131 [2018]; AB Green Gansevoort, LLC v Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc. , 102 AD3d 425 , 426 [1st Dept 2013]). Issues exist here as to whether the signed two-page subcontract between GSC and Bordone incorporated an “invoice requirements” page and whether that page sufficiently required GSC to procure additional insured coverage for Bordone.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments. Concur—Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, JJ..