CGL – NAMED INSURED STATUS – REFORMATION – MUTUAL MISTAKE
South Hylan, LLC v CNA Ins. Co.
(2nd Dept., decided 11/1/2011)
A person or entity can be entitled to coverage under a liability policy in one of three ways: (1) as a named insured; (2) as an additional insured; or (3) as an omnibus insured, qualifying as an insured by virtue of a provision in the "Who is an Insured" or other omnibus insured clause of the policy.
Plaintiffs sought defense and indemnification coverage from National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford (NFICH) for an underlying personal injury action. NFICH declined based on the fact that plaintiffs were not named insureds on the policy under which they sought coverage (and presumably were not additional insureds or omnibus insureds either). Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action and, among other things, sought to reform (re-write) the policy to add themselves as named insureds based on the parties' alleged mutual mistake in procuring and issuing the policy. Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ajello, J.H.O.), denied NFICH's motion and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment and NFICH appealed.
In REVERSING the lower court's order, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that NFICH had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that plaintiffs were not named insureds in the subject insurance policy. The appellate court also found that plaintiffs had failed in opposition to NFICH's motion to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether reformation of the subject insurance policy was appropriate because a mutual mistake had been made as to the identity of the actual insureds.
You know what a claim like this one means, don't you? A companion agent E&O claim. Looks like that action is heading to trial next month.