MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This lawsuit presents the question whether an insurer has a duty to defend the City of New York (“the City”) in a state-court lawsuit over millions of dollars in property damage that allegedly occurred when a section of Northern Boulevard in Queens collapsed during a construction project. Consistent with a City requirement, the general contractor on the Northern Boulevard construction project — the Perini Group, Inc. (“Perini”) — obtained an insurance policy that covers the City as an additional insured “only with respect to liability for…’property damage’…caused, in whole or in part, by [Perini's] acts or omissions.” Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“Con Edison”) has filed a complaint in state court seeking to recover millions of dollars for property damage that Con Edison allegedly suffered due to the collapse. The lawsuit names the City and Perini as defendants, among others. The City has now filed this federal lawsuit arguing that Perini’s insurer, Fleet General Insurance Group, Inc. (“Fleet”), has a duty to defend the City in the Con Edison case. Under New York law, an insurer has a duty to defend a litigant if a complaint raises “a reasonable possibility” that the lawsuit will result in an award of damages against the litigant that is covered by the insurer’s policy. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 332 F.3d 145, 160 (2d Cir. 2003). I conclude that the insurer does have a duty to defend the City in Con Edison’s lawsuit. Like other courts that have examined similar policy language, I conclude that endorsement insuring the City for property damage “caused, in whole or in part, by” Perini’s acts or omissions requires the insurer to cover the City for property damage proximately caused by Perini. And, fairly read, Con Edison’s lawsuit does allege that the City is liable for such damage. Even if the policy were narrower, the insurer would have a duty to defend the City in the Con Edison case. Both parties agree that, at minimum, the insurance policy here would protect the City against joint and several liability with Perini for Con Edison’s damages. And the complaint raises at least a reasonable possibility that Perini and the City will be held jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, the City’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and Fleet’s motion for summary judgment is denied. BACKGROUND The following background comes from the parties’ joint statement of undisputed facts and attached exhibits. See Local Rule 56.1; Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkt. #20). A. Factual Background 1. The Construction Project In July 2014, the Fleet Financial Group, Inc. (“Fleet Financial”), a nonparty, allegedly sought to build “a multi-story, mixed-use building, featuring apartments, a hotel, retail [space,] and office space” on a “pie-shaped wedge of land…bordered by Northern Boulevard” in Queens. See Compl. 3, Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. E. Emerald Grp. LLC, No. 715229/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Sept. 5, 2019) (Dkt. #20-1) (“Con Edison Compl.”). Fleet Financial enlisted Perini as a general contractor and the Racanelli Construction Group, Inc. (“Racanelli”), as a “contractor or subcontractor” to do the work. See id.
12-13, 32-33. The following year, under Fleet Financial and Perini’s “guidance, direction, and supervision,” Racanelli allegedly “began excavation work.” Id. 38. Racanelli soon started to receive “violations, penalties, and stop work orders” from the New York City Department of Buildings. Id. 40. For example, Racanelli allegedly received a violation in November 2015 “for failure to maintain building walls.” Id. 43. This violation noted “at the time of the inspection” that “the sidewalk and curb” adjacent to the site had “shift[ed].” Ibid. Perini also received a permit to work on the Northern Boulevard site, see Joint Statement 7, and also received violations from the New York City Department of Buildings, see Con Edison Compl.
