CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, plf-res, v. MIKE'S PIPE YARD AND BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., def, DAMON HAINDL, def-ap

8790. CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, plf-res, v. MIKE'S PIPE YARD AND BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., def, DAMON HAINDL, def-ap — Avanzino & Moreno, P.C., Brooklyn (Oliver R. Tobias of counsel), for ap — Law Office of Steven G. Fauth, LLC, New York (Suma Samuel Thomas of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, upon renewal and reargument, granted plaintiff Castlepoint Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment to declare that Castlepoint did not have an obligation to indemnify or defend defendant Mike's Pipe Yard and Building Supply Corp. (Mike's) in an underlying personal injury action brought by defendant Damon Haindl, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8790. CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, plf-res, v. MIKE’S PIPE YARD AND BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., def, DAMON HAINDL, def-ap — Avanzino & Moreno, P.C., Brooklyn (Oliver R. Tobias of counsel), for ap — Law Office of Steven G. Fauth, LLC, New York (Suma Samuel Thomas of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, upon renewal and reargument, granted plaintiff Castlepoint Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment to declare that Castlepoint did not have an obligation to indemnify or defend defendant Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply Corp. (Mike’s) in an underlying personal injury action brought by defendant Damon Haindl, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting Castlepoint’s motion to renew and reargue its prior motion (see e.g. Meija v. Nanni, 307 AD2d 870 [1st Dept 2003]). Castlepoint correctly argued that Mike’s could not demonstrate the reasonableness of its delay in reporting the accident leading to Haindl’s injury (Paramount Ins. Co. v. Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235, 240 [1st Dept 2002]). Mike’s principal knew of the accident the day it occurred and of the potential for litigation almost immediately thereafter. In addition, the arguments it made in opposition to the initial motion for summary judgment had been previously rejected in a similar action (Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Mike’s Pipe Yard & Bldg. Supply Corp., 35 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2006]), making it unreasonable for Mike’s to think they would suffice to excuse late notice to its insurer in the instant action.

CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, plf-res, v. MIKE'S PIPE YARD AND BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., def, DAMON HAINDL, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal