3385-3386. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, PLAINTIFF, ACE INA INSURANCE plf-ap, v. TRANSCANADA ENERGY USA, INC. def-res — TC RAVENSWOOD, LLC, plf-res, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA a/k/a AIG, ETC. def, ACE INA INSURANCE def-ap — Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, New York (Thomas B. Orlando of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for ap — Anderson Kill, P.C., New York (Pamela D. Hans of counsel), for res — Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered March 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied ACE INA Insurance’s and Arch Insurance Company’s (collectively, the insurers) consolidated motions for partial summary judgment for a declaration in their favor, and granted TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., TC Ravenswood Services Corp., and TC Ravenswood LLC’s (collectively, TransCanada) motion for partial summary judgment declaring that the subject insurance policy covers the September 12, 2008 breakdown of turbine generator Unit 30 at the Ravenswood electrical power facility, in addition to TransCanada’s claim for loss of capacity sales after May 28, 2009, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from original order, same court and Justice, entered March 4, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by that from the amended order.
TransCanada makes a claim under the subject insurance policy for coverage of losses that resulted when a power-generating turbine (Unit 30) at its Ravenswood Generating Station in Long Island City was taken out of operation on September 12, 2008 (during the policy period), due to excessive vibrations. The vibrations were found to have been caused by a nine-inch crack in Unit 30′s rotor. Unit 30 functioned according to an alarm and trip system, with protocols established when the policy was underwritten. According to these protocols, Unit 30 was functioning properly until September 12, 2008, notwithstanding that the crack had begun to form before the inception of the policy period; moreover, it is undisputed that the crack had continued to lengthen during the policy period. Therefore, the loss occurred on September 12, 2008 – the discrete event of physical loss or damage triggering the time element coverage – when the unit was taken out of operation due to the excessive vibrations, and TransCanada’s property sustained a physical loss or damage during the policy period. Since there is no provision in the policy that excludes physical loss or damage originating prior to the commencement of the policy period, the policy covers the loss (see Labate v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 652, 653-654 [2d Dept 2005]).
