Pecker Iron Works of New York,
Inc.,
Respondent,
v.
Traveler's Insurance Company,
Appellant,
et al.,
Defendants.
2003 NY Int. 7
This case involves the relative obligations of two liability insurance carriers covering the same risk. The outcome turns on whether the insurance policy in question extends primary or merely excess coverage to "additional insureds." We conclude that the policy provides primary coverage, and therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division.
At the time of the injury giving rise to the present
dispute, Pecker Iron Works engaged Upfront Enterprises to provide
labor, materials and equipment for a construction project under
An Upfront worker was injured at the site and brought suit against the owner of the property and the general contractor (see Jansen v C. Raimondo & Son Constr. Co., 293 AD2d 574 [2002]). They in turn commenced a third-party action against Pecker. Pecker then brought this declaratory judgment action, seeking a judicial determination that Travelers was obligated to provide primary coverage for any liability resulting from the accident. Pecker based its claim on its contract with Upfront and on Upfront's policy with Travelers.
Supreme Court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss,
concluding that, by its terms, the Travelers policy provided only
excess coverage in the absence of a written, express designation
Pecker's claim against Travelers arises from its status as an "additional insured" under the policy, so we begin with that document. It is undisputed that Travelers provided Upfront with primary coverage and that Upfront agreed to make Pecker an additional insured. "Additional insured" is a recognized term in insurance contracts, with an understanding crucial to our conclusion in this case. As cases have recognized, the "well- understood meaning" of the term is "an 'entity enjoying the same protection as the named insured'" (Del Bello v General Accid. Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 691, 692 [1992], quoting Rubin, Dictionary of Insurance Terms [Barron's 1987]; see also Jefferson Ins. Co. v Travelers Indemnity Co., , 92 NY2d 363, 372 [1998]; Wong v New York Times Co., 297 AD2d 544, 546 [2002]).
When Pecker engaged Upfront as a subcontractor and in
writing provided that Upfront would name Pecker as an additional
insured, Pecker signified, and Upfront agreed, that Upfront's
carrier -- not Pecker's -- would provide Pecker with primary
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Footnotes
1 Sued incorrectly as "Traveler's Insurance Company."