BICOUNTY BROKERAGE CORP., res, v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY def, BUCKINGHAM BADLER ASSOCIATES, ap

BICOUNTY BROKERAGE CORP., res, v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY def, BUCKINGHAM BADLER ASSOCIATES, ap — (INDEX NO. 3017/03)In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Burlington Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff's client, nonparty P & T Contracting Corp., in certain underlying personal injury actions, and to recover damages from the defendant Buckingham Badler Associates for negligence based on the failure to procure insurance, the defendant Buckingham Badler Associates appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 6, 2010, as denied its cross motion, denominated as one to clarify an order of the same court dated March 5, 2010, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Burlington Insurance Company which were, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the defendant Burlington Insurance Company is not obligated to defend or indemnify nonparty P & T Contracting Corp. with regard to eight of the underlying actions, but which was, in actuality, one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

BICOUNTY BROKERAGE CORP., res, v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY def, BUCKINGHAM BADLER ASSOCIATES, ap — (INDEX NO. 3017/03)In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Burlington Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff’s client, nonparty P & T Contracting Corp., in certain underlying personal injury actions, and to recover damages from the defendant Buckingham Badler Associates for negligence based on the failure to procure insurance, the defendant Buckingham Badler Associates appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 6, 2010, as denied its cross motion, denominated as one to clarify an order of the same court dated March 5, 2010, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Burlington Insurance Company which were, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the defendant Burlington Insurance Company is not obligated to defend or indemnify nonparty P & T Contracting Corp. with regard to eight of the underlying actions, but which was, in actuality, one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order dated August 6, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

BICOUNTY BROKERAGE CORP., res, v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY def, BUCKINGHAM BADLER ASSOCIATES, ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal