CHARLES F. EVANS CO., INC. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Conn. 2001)
- International Business Machines Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2d Cir. 2004)
- International Business Machines Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (2d Cir. 2004)
- Mack-Cali Realty Corp. v. Peerless Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- BLISS SEQUOIA INSURANCE V. ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS (9th Cir. 2022)
- FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP v. BRADY FARMS, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Farm Family Casualty Insurance v. Brady Farms, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Nassau Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Mazzocki v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff Charles F. Evans Company, an insured, seeks a declaration that defendant Zurich Insurance Company must defend it in an underlying action.
Damon G. Douglas Company, a general contractor, subcontracted with Evans to do roofing work for a building constructed for BASF Corporation. Douglas sued BASF claiming the remaining amounts due under the construction contract. BASF, in turn, counterclaimed against Douglas, alleging that the roofing around the skylights in the new building was improperly installed and leaked. Douglas then brought a third-party action for indemnity and contribution against Evans. BASF’s counterclaim in the underlying action sought damages for breach of the construction contract, in part incurred because of bodily injury. Specifically, BASF alleged that due to the leaking roof, its employees “slipped and fell in puddles * * * and were injured,” and “[a]s a result thereof, BASF has been forced to incur expenses, in the form of lost-time and workers’ compensation claims, and has thereby been damaged.”
The policy, providing coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’,” is at least ambiguous as to whether the claims in question are covered, and must be construed against *781 the insurer. The claims arising from slip-and-fall injuries thus allege “facts or grounds which bring the action within the protection purchased,” and trigger Zurich’s duty to defend Evans (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 310; see, Schwamb v Fireman’s Ins. Co., 41 NY2d 947, 949; International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325-326). We also reject Zurich’s contention that the alleged slip-and-falls were not “occurrences” (defined to include an “accident”) within the meaning of its policy.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.