#### Susan M. Batt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene L. Batt, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, v State of New York et al., Defendants and Third-Party Claimants-Respondents. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

(Claim No. 115417.)

[978 NYS2d 488]

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered May 7, 2012. The judgment, among other things, denied the motion of third-party defendants for summary judgment insofar as it sought a declaration that third-party defendant American Home Assurance Co. is not required to defend or indemnify defendants and third-party claimants State of New York or the New York State Thruway Authority under the New York Special Protective Highway policy and granted the cross motion of defendants and third-party claimants for partial summary judgment in part and declared that third-party defendant American Home Assurance Co. is obligated to defend, inter alia, defendant and third-party claimant New York State Thru way Authority under that policy.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal insofar as taken by third-party defendants AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. and New Hamp*1286shire Insurance Co. is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On July 26, 2006, claimant’s decedent sustained fatal injuries when the motorcycle that he was operating collided with a vehicle on the exit 56 ramp of the New York State Thruway. In June 2006, defendant and third-party claimant New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) contracted with a contractor to perform construction work on the exit 56 interchange. Pursuant to the contract, the contractor obtained insurance from third-party defendants New Hampshire Insurance Co. (New Hampshire) and American Home Assurance Co. (American), naming NYSTA as an additional insured. After plaintiff commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action against defendants and third-party claimants (hereafter, third-party claimants), third-party defendants disclaimed coverage. Thereafter, third-party claimants commenced a third-party action seeking a declaration that New Hampshire and American were required to provide NYSTA with a defense in the underlying action and to indemnify defendant and third-party claimant State of New York (State). Third-party defendants moved for, inter alia, summary judgment declaring that they are not obligated to defend or indemnify third-party claimants. Third-party claimants cross-moved for, inter alia, partial summary judgment declaring that American is required to defend NYSTA in the underlying action. As relevant to this appeal, the Court of Claims denied third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought a declaration that American is not obligated to defend or indemnify the State or NYSTA under the New York Special Protective Highway policy and granted third-party claimants’ cross motion in part and declared that American is obligated to defend, inter alia, NYSTA under that policy. Third-party defendants appealed. We conclude that New Hampshire and third-party defendant AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. are not aggrieved by the judgment and thus the appeal, insofar as taken by those parties, must be dismissed *(see*CPLR 5511), and we otherwise affirm.

An insurer’s duty to defend is “ ‘exceedingly broad’ and an insurer will be called upon to provide a defense whenever the allegations of the complaint ‘suggest ... a reasonable possibility of coverage’ ” *(Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v Cook,*7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006], quoting *Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp.,*80 NY2d 640, 648 [1993]; *see Henderson v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*56 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2008]). Thus, the duty to defend exists “ ‘even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be merit-*1287less or not covered’ ” *(Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford,*7 NY3d at 137, quoting *Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co.,*78 NY2d 61, 63 [1991]; *see also BP A.C. Corp. v One Beacon Ins. Group,*8 NY3d 708, 714 [2007]). We conclude that where, as here, the claim, “[i]f[ ] liberally construed, ... is within the embrace of the policy, the insurer must come forward to defend its insured no matter how groundless, false or baseless the suit may be” *|(Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co.,*52 NY2d 663, 670 [1981], *rearg denied*54 NY2d 753 [1981]) and without regard to whether the insurer “may not be required to pay once the litigation has run its course” *(Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford,*7 NY3d at 137).

With respect to indemnification, that determination will abide the trial *(see id.*at 138; *Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst v Hanover Ins. Co.,*89 NY2d 293, 300 [1996]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.