11160-11161-11162. HARTFORD UNDERWRITING INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-res-ap, v. GREENMAN-PEDERSON, INC. def-res, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY Defendants-Appellants-res, KOCH SKANSKA USA def — Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly P.C., New York (Jonathan T. Uejio of counsel), for appellants-res — Lazare, Potter & Giacovas, LLP, New York (Stephen M. Lazare of counsel), for res-res — Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (David B. Hamm of counsel), for Greenman-Pederson, Inc., res — Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC, New York (Kristin V. Gallagher of counsel), for Continental Casualty Company, res ——Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered August 15, 2012, which superseded a March 9, 2012 order, granted defendant Greenman-Pederson, Inc.’s (GPI) cross motion for summary judgment and declared that plaintiff Hartford and defendant-appellant Syndicate 2020 at Lloyd’s of London (Lloyd’s) had a duty to defend and indemnify GPI in the underlying action, and denied Hartford’s motion and Lloyd’s cross motion for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief against GPI, denied defendant-respondent Continental Casualty Company’s (Continental) cross motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that its policy was excess to the Hartford and Lloyd’s policies, and granted GPI’s motion for summary judgment for reasonable attorneys’s fees against Hartford in defending this action and referred the issue of the amount of such fees to a special referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered March 9, 2012 and June 26, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
“[I]t is the responsibility of the insurer to explain its delay” (First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Jetco Contr. Corp, 1 NY3d 64, 70 [2003]). Hartford undisputably had a pre-claim report of the 200 accident in 2006. Hartford had every opportunity to investigate and disclaim, yet it failed to do so until at least 2009, fully one year after GPI was added to the underlying action as a defendant.
