Case Name: Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2018-01-25
Citations: 157 A.D.3d 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent.
Judges: Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent.
[67 NYS3d 455]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered June 23, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify it on a primary, noncontributory basis in the underlying personal injury action and to reimburse it for all reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees expended by it in that action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted, and it is so declared.
The insurance policy issued by defendant to Peter Pan provides coverage for damages owed because of, inter alia, " 'bodily injury'. . . caused by an 'accident' and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered 'auto.' " Regardless of whether the plaintiff in the underlying action, having arrived at her destination on a Peter Pan bus and seen the driver unloading the passengers' luggage, tripped over a suitcase while approaching her own suitcase or tripped on the curb while looking for her suitcase, her accident resulted from Peter Pan's use of the bus, a covered auto, and defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify Peter Pan in the underlying action (see BP A.C. Corp. v One Beacon Ins. Group, 8 NY3d 708, 714 [2007]; Axton Cross Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 176 AD2d 482 [1st Dept 1991], lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 [1991]; Cosmopolitan Mut. Ins. Co. v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 18 AD2d 460 [1st Dept 1963]).
Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.