In a December 8, 2010 decision by Justice Warshawsky, the Court considered the parties’ motions for summary judgment in an action brought by a contractor against its retail insurance broker. The action was brought against the broker based upon an excess carrier’s disclaimer of coverage because of late notice. Although defendants did not dispute they had the responsibility to notify the excess carrier, the facts surrounding the communications between the parties was in sharp dispute. The Court first dismissed the claims based on the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as duplicative of the contract claims. Next, the Court considered the statute of limitations defense, and whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel tolled the running of the statute. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court held issues of fact indeed existed, and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on several claims. Finally, the Court considered the motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint, granting the motion in its entirety, concluding that neither claims for indemnity nor contribution existed.
Sorbara Constr. Corp. v. Romeo, Sup Ct, Nassau County, Dec. 8, 2010, Warshawsky, J, Index No. 001238/2008.