BROADCASTS.com

b'

Construction and Development Activities Exclusion Unambiguous\\n\\nIn Grenadier Realty Corp., et al. v. RLI Insurance Company, appellant, \\net al., No. 2020-06795, Index No. 502159/18, 2023 NY Slip Op 03910, \\nSupreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 26, 2023) a New York \\nSupreme Court (trial court) order requiring RLI Insurance Company to \\ndefend its insured was appealed by RLI.\\n\\nThe trial court order granted the plaintiffs\' motion for summary \\njudgment declaring that certain losses were covered under a general \\nliability insurance policy issued by RLI Insurance Company and that RLI \\nInsurance Company was obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs in \\nconnection with the underlying action entitled Gargiso v Howland Hook \\nHousing Co., Inc.\\n\\nUNDERLYING ACTION AND INSURANCE CLAIM\\n\\nIn July 2012, Michael Gargiso allegedly was injured when he stepped in a\\n trench which was dug as part of a construction project that had been \\nleft unfinished. Gargiso sued the\\xa0 property owner, Howland Hook Housing \\nCo., and the property manager, Grenadier Realty Corp.\\n\\nGrenadier, which had purchased a general liability insurance policy from\\n the defendant RLI effective March 1, 2012 (the subject policy), sought \\nto obtain coverage from RLI. RLI denied coverage based upon an exclusion\\n in an endorsement to the subject policy for "bodily injury" arising out\\n of "Construction and Development Activities."\\n\\nThereafter, the plaintiffs sued RLI to recover damages for breach of the\\n subject policy and for a judgment declaring that RLI is obligated to \\nprovide coverage under the policy and to indemnify the plaintiffs in \\nconnection with the underlying action.\\n\\nThe plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their causes of action \\nagainst RLI alleging breach of contract and for a judgment declaring \\nthat RLI was obligated to provide insurance coverage to them under the \\npolicy and to indemnify them. RLI cross-moved for summary judgment \\ndismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and for a \\njudgment declaring that it has no duty to indemnify the plaintiffs.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nIn determining a dispute over insurance coverage, the appellate court \\nfirst looks to the language of the policy. As with any contract, \\nunambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their \\nplain and ordinary meaning. The insurer has the burden of proving the \\napplicability of an exclusion. If the language is doubtful or uncertain \\nin its meaning, any ambiguity will be construed in favor of the insured \\nand against the insurer. However, the plain meaning of a policy\'s \\nlanguage may not be disregarded to find an ambiguity where none exists.\\n\\nThe RLI policy provided coverage for, among other things, damages \\nbecause of "bodily injury." The policy, however, includes a construction\\n and development exclusion, which, as is relevant, excludes from \\ncoverage "bodily injury" resulting from "Construction and Development \\nActivities." Gargiso was injured when he stepped into a trench which had\\n been dug as part of the construction activities in a parking lot on the\\n property. Therefore, RLI established that it did not have a duty to \\nindemnify the plaintiffs in connection with the underlying action.\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\n\\nThe Supreme Court should have denied plaintiffs\' motion for summary \\njudgment and should have granted RLI\'s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and for a \\njudgment declaring that RLI is not obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs\\n in connection with the subject underlying action\\n