TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

D'Aquilla Bros. Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

D'Aquilla Brothers Contracting Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, (Action No. 1.) Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (Action No. 2.)

D'Aquilla Bros. Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 15 A.D.2d 509 (1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 11, 1961
Citations
15 A.D.2d 509222 N.Y.S.2d 4091961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7217

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*511 In our opinion, in view of the terms of the respective policies, both insurers are liable, in proportion to the amounts of their respective policies, for the payment of the unpaid judgment for contribution against the excavation subcontractor. We find that such subcontractor was in control of the excavation site within the meaning of Hartford’s policy. Hence, such subcontractor’s act of loading the truck there was not excluded from the coverage of said policy. We also find that in the prior action by Marigliano, the excavation subcontractor was held liable for its failure to employ “trimmers” and to properly trim the load; and that such failure constituted its own negligence, and not the negligence of its crane operator. Therefore it is precluded from obtaining indemnity from him for its own negligence. On this appeal the defendant Liberty does not contest its obligation under its policy to cover the excavation subcontractor Frens as an additional insured. Since both insurers are responsible, appellants’ suggestion that the liability upon the judgment for contribution against the excavation subcontractor be apportioned between the two insurers pursuant to the “other insurance” clauses in each policy, is taken by us as a concession of the partial defense of “ other insurance.” We pass upon no other questions. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur. [22 Mise 2d 733.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 11975: 11976: 11978: 11980: 11998: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Continental Insurance v. Transport Insurance Co. of Transport Group52 A.D.2d 210 (1976)
  2. Argentina v. Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.161 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1998)
  3. Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc.454 P.2d 229 (Wash. 1969)
  4. Albert J. Schiff Associates, Inc. v. Flack73 A.D.2d 329 (1980) · Dissent
  5. Romano v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance65 A.D.2d 941 (1978)
  6. Pensky v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.84 Misc. 2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Argentina v. Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.161 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1998)
  2. Albert J. Schiff Associates, Inc. v. Flack73 A.D.2d 329 (1980) · Dissent
  3. Romano v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance65 A.D.2d 941 (1978)
  4. Continental Insurance v. Transport Insurance Co. of Transport Group52 A.D.2d 210 (1976)
  5. Pensky v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.84 Misc. 2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975)
  6. Bosko v. Pitts & Still, Inc.454 P.2d 229 (Wash. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list